Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Defence-related Jobs

Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of jobs in the north-west region of England which are related to defence requirements.

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the impact upon jobs in the defence industry of his Department's plans for the future.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Historical figures, broken down by region, for the number of jobs related to defence requirements are published in volume 2 of the 1991 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", a copy of which is in the Library.
The future level of employment in the defence industry is a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned.

Mr. Lamond: That answer is in line with what we have had before, so it is not unexpected. If we are prepared to participate in a European bank for reconstruction and development to help countries in eastern Europe which are facing the same problems as Britain's defence industry workers, could we not at least set up a defence diversification agency to help the tens of thousands of workers in the north-west and throughout the United Kingdom who will be thrown on to the scrap heap?

Mr. Clark: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is shared by my Department, but I do not think that on reflection he would want the defence industry to be singled out for particular treatment from our other manufacturing industries. We are particularly concerned about the anxiety and deprivation that result when people lose their jobs as a result of the changing international climate. I am in constant touch with defence industry leaders through the National Defence Industries Council and the Defence Manufacturers Association, and my Department participates in the regional seminar staged by the DTI for small and medium-sized defence industries. An agency such as the hon. Gentleman suggests would do little more than we are already doing unless it were funded and empowered to make grants and loans which, as he will realise, is not a practical suggestion, because it would mean singling out a particular sector of British industry.

Mr. Bill Michie: Opposition Members will obviously be disappointed at the Minister's reply which is characterised by his usual laid-back approach to the matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that our competitors in Europe and elsewhere will ensure that whatever happens to future orders their defence industries will be compensated by alternative diversification? Once again, the Government seem not to give a damn what happens to our skills and to the jobs of the future. As always since the Government came into power, we are in the slow lane.

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman's question is completely misleading. Among our so-called competitors, the United States and west German defence industries are suffering much heavier job losses than we are. The job losses in United Kingdom defence industries as a result of the change of emphasis in British procurement are as nothing compared with those that would be suffered under the Labour party's defence policy—if so dignified a term can be used for something so confused, contradictory and misleading. Such job losses would be horrific and far more widespread.

Mr. Dover: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the importance of British Aerospace as a major employer in the defence industry in the north-west. Will he accept its deep gratitude for the way in which his officials are explaining his Department's needs so as to ensure that the right commercial decisions are made about the markets to go for in future?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes an important point about markets. It ill behoves Opposition Members constantly, for ideological reasons, to decry my Department's sponsorship of the sale of arms to friendly countries wishing to defend themselves within the terms of, for example, article 51 of the United Nations charter.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not my hon. Friend delighted with the $450 million order—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is most unseemly.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: —that British Aerospace has just won for 20 RJ70s that is especially designed for the United States market and fills a niche that no one else could have filled?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that good example of the special skills and capabilities that the British defence industry still has, and which I do not doubt will serve it well in future in both domestic and export markets.

Mr. O'Neill: The Minister has repeatedly said that he does not want to single out the defence industry for special consideration. He surely recollects the precedents set in the steel and coal industries, in which the Community was involved in Europewide initiatives to limit the impact of the decline in demand for the products of the companies concerned. If the Minister is not prepared to shoulder the burden on behalf of the British taxpayer, is the time not right for him to work with the European Community in establishing a Europewide diversification initiative?

Mr. Clark: I have not heard of such an initiative, but if one were to be promulgated by the Community, we would consider it carefully.

Surplus Land

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding the disposal of land surplus to his Department's requirements.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): It is Government policy that the defence estate should be no larger than necessary for defence purposes. We continually seek opportunities for rationalisation and the release of land surplus to our requirements. To ensure that the best return is achieved for the taxpayer, it is our normal policy to offer property not needed by the services for sale on the open market.

Mr. Hunter: May I ask my hon. Friend urgently to investigate why his Department declines to release to Basingstoke and Deane borough council land in the village of Bramley that is earmarked for a playing field under our local plan? Is he aware of the concern and indignation that perceived unwarranted delay causes?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend will know that that is part of a parcel of land of about 45 acres in total. We are in negotiations with the local authority for planning permission, and we hope to obtain it for housing on some of that land. We are also talking to potential purchasers. I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I will make sure that my officials are also made aware of it.

Mr. Viggers: Where the Ministry of Defence has occupied land for generations or even for centuries, will my hon. Friend ensure that in disposing of it the Ministry will work as closely as possible with local authorities to ensure that it is developed consistently in accordance with the wishes of local people?

Mr. Hamilton: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend in that regard. To enhance the value of any land of which we are disposing, we often need planning permission, which we can obtain only with the help of local authorities. We therefore work very closely with them.

Dr. Godman: Will there be any disposal of surplus Ministry of Defence land in Scotland, or is it likely that, due to the redeployment of British forces from Germany, the Ministry will be looking to purchase land in Scotland?

Mr. Hamilton: It is difficult to say where we might want to purchase land. Where we have training areas, we are keen to enlarge them if possible. Many of the weapons systems that we use now are bigger than before and have longer ranges, and so on. Also, a degree of armour will return from Germany which will need space for use in training. We do not have a closed mind, but we should like to rationalise our training areas, enlarging some that we already have and disposing of smaller ones.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Broughton moor site in my constituency is disposed of, will its environmental sensitivity be taken into account?

Mr. Hamilton: I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence for owning more sites of special scientific interest than anyone other than the national parks. We are extremely good stewards of the land that we have. As to Broughton moor, we shall do all that we can to take environmental considerations into account.

Dame Janet Foulkes: May I impress on my hon. Friend that in Plymouth we are tired of waiting what seems like years for land to be released? All that we ask is for sufficient land so that we may then help ourselves.

Mr. Hamilton: I am well aware of the anxiety of people in Plymouth to get on with the whole business of the release and development of Ministry of Defence land. We are doing what we can, but I take my hon. Friend's point that it has been an ongoing saga for some time now.

British Nuclear Deterrent

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the cost of refitting Polaris submarines in the current financial year.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the British nuclear deterrent.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): HMS Renown, now nearing the completion of her refit, is the only Polaris submarine under refit during the current year. The cost of the work to date has been about £150 million.
Britain's credible and effective independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantee of our security. The strategic deterrent will continue to be provided by the Polaris force until Trident comes into service from the mid-1990s.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the Polaris fleet plagued with cracks to the nuclear reactor, and has not the game been given away by Mr. Reg Farmer, a former member of the Ministry of Defence safety of nuclear warships committee? Is it not time that the Secretary of State came clean and admitted to the House that the boats are dangerous, the cost of repair and renovation is beyond reasonable expenditure and the boats should be withdrawn? By taking that action, the right hon. Gentleman would be conforming with the United Nations nuclear nonproliferation treaty for the first time.

Mr. King: That question shows the weakness of preparing a supplementary before hearing the answer to the main question. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my reply, he would have realised what rubbish his supplementary was.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the distribution of its nuclear weapons around the country, it is extremely important for Britain to maintain its nuclear deterrent and to be ready for any eventuality?

Mr. King: Certainly I agree. At a time when the world's largest nuclear power is in the process of disintegration into separate republics, if not worse, and when 27,000 nuclear weapons exist there, the vast majority of which are capable of inflicting considerable damage on this and other countries, it would be lunacy for us to undermine our nuclear deterrent. It is the one nuclear shield that we have. Had the advice of some hon. Members been followed over the years, we might now be in a very exposed position.

Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State must reflect a little on the answer that he has given about the Soviet Union. Does he accept that one of the reasons for the United


Kingdom's continued possession of a strategic deterrent was the fact that it would provide another centre of power, and thus create disequilibrium in the mind of a potential foe? If so, how does he justify the fear that there may be a number of fingers on the disintegrating Soviet strategic deterrent, when at the same time he seeks to justify the proliferation of nuclear strategic deterrents in the hands of France, the United Kingdom and the United States?

Mr. King: That is a fairly complicated question, which may confuse people and prevent them from seeing our present need clearly. It is vital that we preserve our own independent nuclear deterrent as protection against nuclear blackmail; it is equally important that we take every possible step—as we are doing—to ensure that the process of rapid political change, and the change of authority that has taken place in what was the Soviet Union, do not lead to a more dangerous situation in regard to the present control and authority over nuclear weapons. To try to wrap up that question in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested, or to lose sight of either of those objectives, would be extremely unwise.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that highly unsatisfactory and inadequate reply, I give notice of my intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Air-defence Frigates

Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace type 42 destroyers with a new air-defence frigate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): There will be a requirement to replace the type 42 destroyers from around the turn of the century. An 18-month period of exploration with France is under way to consider the prospects for collaboration on an anti-air warfare frigate to meet this requirement.

Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he give us any timetable for the construction of the new vessels, and will he give an assurance that at least 50 per cent.—and preferably more—of the hull and interior construction work will come to United Kingdom shipyards?

Mr. Carlisle: We certainly welcome this collaboration and wish to bring it to a successful conclusion. The timetable that my hon. Friend asked about is as follows. After the exploratory period of 18 months, we hope to proceed by mid-1993 with full development, leading to a first order by the mid-1990s. We aim for an in-service date in the early years of the next century. As for equipment, part of the purpose of the exploratory work is to agree a memorandum of understanding to cover all procurement aspects.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Naval construction work of this type will obviously lead to work for subcontractors. In the past six months, two of my constituents have had their passes removed by Ministry of Defence navy police. Both are respectable men and one of them worked on the facility at Faslane for eight months. It is a great pity that passes

are being taken away from hard-working people, who are not even given any right of appeal. Will the Minister comment on that?

Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman will send me details, I will look into the matter. With regard to subcontractors, we are proud of the quality of work produced by them. Any shipbuilding orders feed through into other employment, apart from the main shipbuilders.

Mr. Boscawen: While my hon. Friend is considering replacement of the type 42 destroyers, will he bear in mind the urgent decision that he and his colleagues have to take very soon about the future of HMS Polar Circle as a replacement for HMS Endurance? Some of us have recently seen that vessel. We believe that she is a very fine ship and that she is needed by the Royal Navy and the Foreign Office. We therefore hope that a favourable decision will soon be reached regarding HMS Polar Circle.

Mr. Carlisle: As has been said in the House previously, my hon. Friend will know that we are committed to the work being done in the south Atlantic, which HMS Polar Circle will shortly be carrying out. I take this opportunity to say that not only that ship but our collaboration in relation to the French frigate and the type 23 frigate orders which will be given shortly show our commitment to naval orders. That is in stark contrast to what would happen if ever the Labour party came to power, with its plans to reduce our spending on equipment by many billions of pounds.

Mr. Boyes: What assurances can the Minister give that in attempting to develop a common requirement for a new air defence frigate we shall not end up with another fiasco of expensive and fruitless bickering between countries with different design requirements? The NFR90 project suffered difficulties of that kind and our involvement in it led to almost two years being wasted. Can the Minister tell us whether Britain's shipyards will be assured of a very early decision on a type 42 replacement, thus allowing for some continuity of work and ending the grave uncertainty in the shipyards so that men and management can get on with what they do best—building ships in British yards?

Mr. Carlisle: We have certainly learnt the lessons of the NFR90. One of those lessons was that we had to align the needs of the platform with those of the systems. We are already doing work on that with the French. That is part of the exploratory programme. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the project, but he must face the harsh reality that if we ever had a Labour Government there would be no money available to pursue this project, let alone order any more type 43 frigates.

Competitive Tendering

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to encourage competitive tendering for military research and development.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Equipment procurement including development is already subject to competitive tendering wherever practicable. As regards research, once a full trading relationship has been established between the


Ministry of Defence and the Defence Research Agency, we intend to implement a progressive extension of competition.

Dr. Clark: Does my hon. Friend accept that military research and development provides a significant technological spin-off for civilian use? Does he accept, therefore, that if more of the research sponsored by his Department were replaced by competitive tendering by universities, research associations or private companies, the benefits for non-military use could he greatly enhanced?

Mr. Carlisle: I respect the point made by my hon. Friend. It might be of interest to the House to hear that already about 40 per cent. of the research undertaken by the Defence Research Agency is subcontracted from the Ministry of Defence to universities and industry—indeed, almost the whole of the development work goes to industry. We certainly welcome collaboration with the civil sector and industry, a good example of which is our work on jet engine technology. We wish to develop that interaction.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a research and development policy and a future procurement policy? Unless there is a prospect of orders, research and development in the military sector is bound to suffer.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As he knows. the research effort in the Ministry of Defence is undergoing substantial change in terms of the Defence Research Agency. Our aim is to ensure that we become more efficient and enhance the effectiveness of our sharp end research.

Nuclear Weapons (Transport)

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if' he will make a statement on the transport of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Safety and security are of paramount importance in our nuclear weapons transport methods and procedures. We do not move any nuclear weapons by road, and would not do so, unless it was safe to do so.

Mrs. Mahon: Why are such weapons transported at all? Have the Government not in effect acknowledged the findings of the Drell panel report on the safety of nuclear weapons by setting up their own review? Will the Minister assure us that he will stop the transportation of any nuclear weapons until the Drell panel findings are issued?

Mr. Hamilton: Certainly not. The hon. Lady, like many Opposition Members, probably does not realise that her party's policy on nuclear weapons has changed. Nuclear weapons must be kept up to date, and they must be serviced at intervals; if that is not done, they become ineffective. If there is a policy of having nuclear weapons, those weapons must be serviced at intervals to keep them running properly.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there have been no leakages of radioactive material in any of the convoys travelling to and from the establishment at Burghfield in my constituency?

Mr. Hamilton: I can certainly confirm that. As I said earlier, the safety of the carriage of radioactive material is paramount. Although there have been mechanical breakdowns, they have merely affected the vehicles carrying the material. There has never been any question of nuclear radiation seeping out.

Mr. McFall: I welcome the establishment of the Ministry of Defence working party under Professor Oxburgh in the light of the Drell report, even though the Government had to be dragged a little to achieve that. On the transport of nuclear weapons, which is covered in the Drell report and should therefore be part of the Oxburgh report, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give local authorities notice when nuclear weapons are to be transported through their localities?

Mr. Hamilton: When there is any question of those materials being transported, we deal with the local police. I believe that that is quite adequate. The local police are responsible for the safety of their areas. One problem is that some of the local authorities with which we have to deal are extremely left wing and anti-nuclear. They leak information about convoys to members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, resulting in convoys being disrupted and people's lives being put in danger.

Royal Naval Reserve

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the Royal Naval Reserve; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: As my right hon. Friend said in his statement on 10 December, our aim is that the naval reserves should be
streamlined but more closely integrated with the Royal Navy."—[Official Report, 10 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 733.]

Mr. Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will recognise that mine counter-measures is a hazardous undertaking—the penalty for getting it wrong is a very large bang and lots of little bits. As the best way to reduce that risk is regular training, can he explain the logic of mothballing two of the River class MCMVs belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve which undertakes mine counter-measures and of leaving two divisions, including the largest—London division—without a ship?

Mr. Hamilton: We have had to take into account the changes in the international situation when considering the RNR. including the lengthening warning time. In those circumstances, it was thought right to reduce some of the activities of the RNR and to make them more relevant to the future.

Sir Patrick Duffy: As the Minister reconsiders the regular-reserve mix of the Royal Navy, as he promised on 10 December, will he ensure that a proper study of task threats is completed and will he create a supplementary list of personnel whom it is planned to axe until that review of task threats is complete?

Mr. Hamilton: Clearly, the regular-reserve force mix study will have to take into account what we see as threats and how we intend to deal with them. We expect to make a statement on that in the new year.

Mr. Robert Banks: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him to accept that the best training for Royal Navy reservists is with the regular Navy and will he give that priority in the coming operations for the Royal Naval Reserve?

Mr. Hamilton: I hear what my hon. Friend says and we shall see whether more opportunities can be given to the RNR to train with the regular Navy.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister ensure that before the review is completed we shall be able to have adequate information so that we can determine the implications for the various areas and for particular bases which are under threat? Will he give an undertaking today to give us information on recruitment levels, retention levels and the position of one base as compared with another before such a report is produced?

Mr. Hamilton: The whole process of rationalising the RNR will be progressed in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence and with the RNR itself and it will make proposals.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the air squadrons of the Royal Naval Reserve have been especially effective and exceptionally well recruited and that there have even been one or two Harrier pilots in the reserve? Could not that be an example for the flying service, the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Hamilton: The position of the Royal Air Force Reserve is, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that does not have the opportunity to fly aircraft. I do not believe that the Harrier pilots who found themselves in the Royal Naval Reserve will have the opportunity to fly either, but it is certainly useful to have them in the reserve should they be needed.

"Options for Change"

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the costs of providing accommodation for those leaving the Army as a result of the reductions in the Army under "Options for Change".

Mr. Tom King: Considerable work has been done on arrangements, not only for accommodation but for the resettlement of those who will be leaving the service in the course of the rundown. We are considering a number of new proposals. I will keep the House informed.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that the current level of 14,000 service families who are resettled every year by the Ministry of Defence is certain to increase dramatically during the restructuring? Does the Ministry of Defence yet have an estimate of the number of personnel families who will not be able to make provision for their own housing? Is he aware that that situation will be compounded substantially by the fact that there are about 1,700 ex-service families currently inhabiting Ministry of Defence premises to which, strictly, they have no title? Is not it time that some urgent policy measures were introduced by the Ministry of Defence to deal with the major problem from 1992 onwards?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has correctly established that there is a considerable turnover every year

in any case. The rundown and the changes involved in "Options for Change" will add to that. Off the top of my head, I think that the figure is about 25 per cent. on top of what usually happens annually. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the changes will take place over a four-year period. However, we are actively involved and a number of steps are being taken. I have appointed to a new post—the director general of resettlement—Major-General Burden who has returned from the British Army on the Rhine. He has an excellent record in this field. A number of proposals are being worked on by housing associations, by voluntary housing bodies, by the Royal British Legion and by the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, which are working with the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Department of Employment on a whole range of opportunities. I think that the hon. Gentleman will get the feeling from that that a considerable effort is being made by many people to try to tackle the problem in the most effective way.

Mr. Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State ask Major-General Burden to come to west Norfolk to have a look at houses on two RAF bases, Sculthorpe and West Raynham, which may close in the future? Will he consider urgently the possibility of the married quarters at the bases being made available to Army personnel who are being made redundant?

Mr. King: I assure my hon. Friend that that matter is one aspect that we are considering. Some service housing is already available to service men on discount purchase, which gives them the opportunity to get on the home ownership ladder. There may be opportunities to rent out existing service property or surplus service property. We are trying to see how we can employ the whole of the defence estate, including married quarters, to help resolve the problem. We will do everything that we can in the area.

Dr. Reid: Is not the truth of the matter not only that the Secretary of State is doing nothing about the housing needs of the service men and women who will be made redundant, but that he does not even know the facts? That was confirmed in a written answer from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He said:
Information on the private housing arrangements or plans of those Army personnel who have applied for. redundancy is not held by the Ministry of Defence."…[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 356.]
Is not the Secretary of State aware of the deplorably low level of home ownership among other ranks in the armed forces and of the dearth of easily affordable council properties as a result of Government policies? Does the Secretary of State intend to thank those who have given service to Queen and country by making them not only jobless, but homeless?

Mr. King: I am afflicted today by people who prepare their supplementaries and do not bother to listen to the
answers. After the answers that I have given, I do not know how anyone can say that nothing is happening on the matter. The hon. Gentleman should have the courtesy to recognise that a considerable amount is being done. There is a challenge to be faced and the hon. Gentleman would make a more constructive contribution if he played a part in helping instead of trying to score cheap party political points when there is a genuine problem to be tackled. For once in his life he should stand up and support service men who need help.

Jobs (South Dorset)

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of studies affecting his Department's employment in south Dorset.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: My hon. Friend is already aware of the studies into the rationalisation of the Defence Research Agency, the relocation of the Procurement Executive and the review of the Army training base. My hon. Friend will also know that as part of "Defence for the 90s" we are reviewing the scope of naval support, although as I made clear in July, there will be a continuing naval presence at Portland.

Mr. Bruce: May I place it on record that I know that my hon. Friend is doing his best to ensure that south Dorset continues to have a large amount of Ministry of Defence employment? I urge him to look at one current study which concerns the possibility of moving the sea systems control first to temporary accommodation and then, in 1995–96, to permanent accommodation. Will he ensure that the sea systems control moves only when the permanent accommodation is available? Will he locate the naval support command, which would be ideally suited for Portland, in the premises that are then vacated?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is tireless in trying to protect defence jobs in south Dorset and to increase their numbers there. I am aware of the concern of the people of the Procurement Executive about the move to Bristol. I hear clearly what my hon. Friend said about seeking to avoid a double move. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory. We are carrying out a study now and we shall seek to resolve that uncertainty as soon as we can.

Trident

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the estimated total cost of acquiring and maintaining the Trident nuclear weapon system.

Mr. Tom King: The current estimated cost of acquiring the United Kingdom Trident system is £9,863 million. We expect the level of running costs of the Trident force to be well below 2 per cent. of the defence budget, not significantly different from those of Polaris.

Mr. Canavan: Are not we entitled to be told the whole truth, as revealed by Greenpeace, which is that the total lifetime cost of Trident will be more than £23 billion? About half that could be saved if Trident were cancelled now. Instead of extravagant spending on such an unnecessary weapons system, will the Secretary of State now make the peace dividend a reality by cancelling Trident and investing the money in areas such as education and the national health service?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman must be unaware that his party is now pledged to keep the nuclear deterrent, according to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). I have made it clear that the cost of running a Trident deterrent will be well below 2 per cent. of the defence budget. I regard that as an economical insurance and the ultimate safeguard against nuclear blackmail. I regard it at present as an important insurance.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reasons why we are updating Trident are basically the same reasons as caused the Labour Government to update our nuclear deterrent by bringing in Chevaline, the difference being that we are doing it openly and they did it under wraps?

Mr. King: I agree absolutely. We are told continually that the Labour party is united on this issue. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has shown how divided it remains on the nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: While accepting the need for the United Kingdom to have the protection of a strategic nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future, may I ask the Secretary of State whether, as a result of his recent conversations with his French counterpart and the agreement reached at Maastricht, consideration has been given to greater co-operation in strategic nuclear matters with France?

Mr. King: We are in close contact and, as is known, we are examining in the sub-strategic nuclear field how we could work more closely with the French Government on a wide range of defence matters.

Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most sensible people in Britain recognise that expenditure on our nuclear deterrent is about the best and safest investment that we can make, especially in view of the alarming situation in Russia and the break-up of the former Soviet Union? Will my right hon. Friend not stint in providing Britain with the best independent deterrent?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. [Interruption.] At a time when the largest nuclear power in the world is in the process of disintegration into separate republics, when that massive nuclear arsenal is under some central control of the remaining central authorities, and when our keen concern is to ensure that that security is real, it seems absolutely unthinkable that we should not have our own protection and the ultimate assurance of an independent deterrent. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are important questions. I ask the House to listen to them, please.

Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects TASM to be in service; and where they will be based.

Mr. Tom King: The WE177 free-fall bomb will be approaching the end of its service life around the turn of the century, but no decision has yet been taken on the system to replace it, or where it will be based.

Mr. Bennett: In their discussions on the replacement system, have the Government talked to the German Government about the possibility of basing a new nuclear missile system in Germany? If not, when do the Government intend to have such discussions? Would not it be far better to seek an effective non-proliferation treaty than to go for a new generation of nuclear weapons?

Mr. King: I have just returned from a NATO meeting last week at which we agreed the military strategy that will accompany the strategic concept now agreed, of which Germany is a prominent supporter. NATO will continue


to base effective and up-to-date sub-strategic nuclear forces in Europe. The alliance strategic concept, of which Germany is a strong supporter, makes that point clear.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the answer that he has just given is further reinforced by the fact that several third-world countries, including some middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Algeria and perhaps Libya, are currently acquiring nuclear weapons? For all those reasons, it is essential that we keep a sub-strategic nuclear system in western Europe.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Not only do we need a strategic deterrent, but there is a strong argument that a sub-strategic deterrent continues to be relevant at a time when there is a real risk of several new nations appearing which have some form of nuclear capability and when we risk the proliferation of not merely equipment but perhaps technology from some of the scientific bases in the former Soviet Union. My hon. Friend's point is very important.

Bullying

Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department to prevent bullying in the services; and how much money has been spent in dealing with this matter since June 1988.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The services take a serious view of bullying and it has been made very clear that bullying and ill-treatment will not be tolerated. A range of measures to combat bullying has been introduced, including the banning of initiation ceremonies and, specifically in the Army, the implementation of a training package on personnel management.
Information on expenditure is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that I welcome both advances which have been made, but it will be obvious to him from my correspondence with the Department that some bullying still goes on. The only way to deal with that is by the appointment of a military ombudsman, who can deal with the problems objectively and is seen to do so. Please may we have an ombudsman?

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the existing disciplinary systems within the services are inadequate. I do not believe that to be so. They are objective and deal with such cases fairly. I do not think that anything would be gained by having an ombudsman to handle those problems.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. John Garrett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Garrett: Last week the head teachers association of Cambridgeshire wrote to the county council to say that because of critical shortages of books, equipment and

facilities and because of oversized classes, it would have serious difficulty providing the national curriculum. Under those circumstances, what advice does the Prime Minister give to his constituents—to buy private education, as he does?

The Prime Minister: In Cambridgeshire the education standard spending assessment for the current year is £225 million, 16·4 per cent. higher than last year. There has been another substantial increase for 1992–93, an increase which safeguards the position of all children in Cambridgeshire.

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the British Medical Association's somewhat belated conversion to the concept of fund-holding GPs? Does he agree with the BMA that that should now be extended to every GP who wants to hold a fund?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that GP fund-holding has been proving successful and has been extending quite dramatically. I welcome the fact that that is the case. We are currently considering how the benefits of fund holding can be extended and will make an announcement in the new year.

Mr. Kinnock: In the interests of establishing the causes of the present mortgage crisis, could the Prime Minister confirm that, as Minister of State for Social Security, he halved mortgage support for newly unemployed people and that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he put the mortgage rate up to its highest in history?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework—rather unusually—better than he has, he would know, first, that the change in the 16-week rule was introduced after lengthy consultations with building societies and, secondly, that at the time, they said that there was no reason for people to lose their homes because of that reduction; nor have they.

Mr. Kinnock: I think the answer that the Prime Minister was groping for was yes. Since he and his policies are uniquely responsible for the difficulties being experienced and the record repossessions and arrears, will he accept the obligation for introducing a proper mortgage rescue scheme, like the one recommended by the Labour party, instead of trying to shift the blame on to everyone else?

The Prime Minister: The alleged mortgage rescue scheme proposed by the Labour party is a farce and has been denounced as such and the right hon. Gentleman should know it. As for the real problem, we are in the midst of discussions with the Building Societies Association and others and in due course we shall make an announcement that will build on the assistance that we have already provided. We have been considering the problem for some time—[Interruption]—unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who has only just discovered it.

Mr. Kinnock: What is a farce, a tragic farce, is the Government's record—a Government who came to power to provide a property-owning democracy and ended with a debt-ridden recession. Since, because of the right hon.


Gentleman's policies, the building societies stand to lose £1 billion because of mortgage repossessions and since local authorities are having to spend £500 million on bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation, does not the Prime Minister think that the rescue mortgage scheme that we have promoted would be the effective way to ensure not only the relief of misery for scores of thousands of families, but that at least he did the honourable thing by his victims?

The Prime Minister: The alleged mortgage rescue scheme about which the hon. Gentleman boasts was described this morning by an independent commentator as
a policy made in an Enid Blyton story book"—[ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's policy is ludicrous. As for the levels of owner occupation, there are 3·5 million more owner-occupiers today than there were in 1979 and no doubt 3·5 million more than there would have been had the right hon. Gentleman been in government.

Sir Hugh Rossi: If one were looking for the reasons for the present situation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been the departure of the building societies and other lenders from the traditional concept of not lending more than 75 per cent. of actual valuation, nor, from the point of view of personal status—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to make his point.

Sir Hugh Rossi: —more than one quarter of monthly salary? If those criteria had been adhered to, many people would not be in their present position. Does my right hon. Friend agree—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being rather long-winded.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Will my right hon. Friend consider legislation to ensure that those traditional criteria are adhered to in future to stop this cyclical problem arising every so many years?

The Prime Minister: It is a sad fact that many people over-extended their mortgage commitments and now face difficulties. The Government are playing their part to alleviate those difficulties and we expect the mortgage lenders—all the responsible ones—to play their part in that. The sensible ones know that it is in their interests to do so.

Mr. Ashdown: If the Prime Minister is really keen to assist families who now stand in danger of having their homes repossessed, will he recognise the anomaly that exists between those on low incomes who pay rent and receive housing benefit and those on low incomes who pay mortgages and do not?

The Prime Minister: I recognise that point very well. But the right hon. Gentleman should not pose, as he frequently does, as the friend of the home-owner—[Interruption.]—Oh, no. His policies are to put up taxes

and abolish mortgage income tax relief. He should stop coming to the House pretending to support home-owners when his policies would discriminate against them.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that only the very wealthy or the very foolish can afford to go to the libel courts for justice? If ordinary people are to have justice, perhaps a jury should find whether somebody is guilty of libel, but these £250,000 and £500,000 judgments are not justice but folly. Should not judges be able to decide what award is justified?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter on which I should be wise to seek the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor. Even in the heat and battle of Prime Minister's questions, it is best to go away and reflect on some matters.

Leith

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the port of Leith.

The Prime Minister: I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country and very much hope to visit the Edinburgh area again before too long.

Mr. Brown: That is welcome news. Leithers will give the Prime Minister a warm welcome, but they will put him in the hot seat because of mass unemployment, homelessness and general misery, which have been experienced not just in my constituency, but throughout Britain. Nevertheless, being constructive, members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians have published a report entitled "Kick-start", which makes various proposals on how to get people back to work and revive the economy. Will the Prime Minister read that report and, more importantly, act on it? If not, the lessons are clear—there will not be a kick-start come the next election, but the Tories will be kicked out. That message is clear in my constituency and I am sure that it is clear in others.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that during the course of this Parliament, unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 32 per cent. The Scottish Office has taken a number of initiatives on homelessness, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In the four Scottish cities, £3·5 million in extra capital allocations have been made available for homelessness and a further £4 million extra capital for additional homelessness projects was made available last November. From April 1991, deficits on all local authority hostels met by Government subsidies will be worth an extra £1 billion a year. So a great deal has been done by the Scottish Office. In future, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge the dramatic reduction in unemployment in his constituency during this Parliament.

Engagements

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December 1991.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that inward investment from America and Japan has brought highly paid, highly skilled and highly trained new jobs to areas like south Wales? Does he also agree that to brand such investment as "sweatshops" is a grave affront to the employees of those companies? The Labour party is telling those investors that they are not welcome here and encouraging them to go elsewhere.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is within the recollection of the House that, some Question Times ago, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was boasting about the Japanese investment in his constituency. Perhaps he will tell us whether that is "sweatshop" investment. If it is not, will he denounce his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who made the comment?

Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Battle: Does the Prime Minister recall when, as Minister for Social Security, he cut mortgage support in half and said that there would be no reason to suppose that repossessions would increase? He said, "It will not happen". In view of that, does not he owe many thousands of families in Britain a personal apology?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts more carefully. The Building Societies Association assured the Government at the time that, when the rule was introduced, there would be no reason to expect people to lose their homes as a result and they have not done so. The simplest inquiry by the hon. Gentleman would have ascertained that fact.

Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Councillor Mrs. Lydia Simmons, the Labour chairman of the housing committee in Slough, on her appointment as a member of the board of the NHS trust for Wexham Park hospital in my constituency? Does he agree that there is room for sensible people of all political persuasions to serve the community through NHS hospital trusts?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We need people of talent, whatever their political persuasions, in such public positions and I look forward to people of talent taking them up regularly.

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Prime Minister promise the House that no senior citizen, sick or disabled person need die from hypothermia or any illnesses resulting from it because they do not have the money to heat their homes? Does the Prime Minister agree that the elderly, sick and disabled should automatically receive a heating allowance every winter instead of having to go cap in hand to the Government? Does not he understand that it is action, not words, that the elderly, sick and disabled of Britain require of him?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that the House was advised in the summer of a new scheme to assist people during periods of very cold weather—well over I million payments are expected to be made for the recent cold spell. Those payments were not available under previous Governments.

Tees and Hartlepool Port

Mr. Stuart Bell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed sale of the Tees and Hartlepool port to a consortium that includes Humberside Holdings Ltd., with consequences for the local communities of Tees and Hartlepool, and the sale of British ports in general.
The matter is specific in that the Tees and Hartlepool board yesterday announced its recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport to sell the port to a consortium that includes Humberside Holdings Ltd. The board does not appear to have taken into account the fact that Humberside Holdings Ltd. saw two of its associated companies, Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. and John Sutcliffe Stevedores Ltd., go into liquidation with outstanding liabilities to dockers on the abolition of the dock labour scheme of £3,034,001 in the case of Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. and £3,598,314 in the case of John Sutcliffe Stevedores Ltd. Humberside Holdings Ltd. set up a third company, East Coast Port Services, to make it the largest stevedore group in Grimsby and Immingham, providing the same services as those companies that went into liquidation. John Sutcliffe Stevedores also left on its books, by way of non-preferential claims, £142,247 to 43 small firms.
The matter is important as not only is Humberside Holdings Ltd. not a fit and proper bidder for the port of Tees and Hartlepool, but the Government, during the passage of the Ports Act 1991, stated that preference would be given to worker-management buy-out schemes and gave assurances, both to the consortium of Tees and Hartlepool—consisting of managers and workers alike—and to the other trust ports throughout the land, that such schemes would be favoured. As a consequence, there are management-employee buy-outs on the table for the ports of Tilbury, Medway and Clyde, all of which are likely to be affected by the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to ignore the bid of the local Tees and Hartlepool consortium.
The matter is urgent because the Secretary of State cannot even entertain the recommendation of the Tees and Hartlepool board because Parliament has not empowered him to do so. The requisite statutory instrument dealing with the clawback of funds from the sale of land owned by

port authorities has not completed its passage through Parliament, so it cannot be right to announce what the Secretary of State is minded to do until the Ports Act 1991 is perfected. If that were to happen, what would have happened to the will of Parliament?
A full debate on the Floor of the House would give all Members who served on the Ports Bill, and other Members with constituency interests, a chance to give their views on what constitutes an abdication of Government responsibility, a reneging of promises given and undertakings entered into.
Therefore, I call for a debate because what we see in Humberside Holdings Ltd. is the ugly and unacceptable face of capitalism.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed sale of the Tees and Hartlepool port to Humberside Holdings Ltd., with consequences for the local community of Tees and Hartlepool.
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman had to say on this matter, but, as he knows, I have to decide whether to give his application precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I must rule in this case that it does not meet the criteria of the order and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that I raised this matter with you by way of a request for a private notice question on Tuesday—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter that we discuss in the Chamber. Had the hon. Gentleman raised it under Standing Order No. 20, that would have been different.

Mr. Devlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Leader of the House on Thursday for a statement on this subject. It is a matter of grave concern to the people of Teesside and there should be some opportunity for the Government to set out their views on it before the end of this Session.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has raised the matter under Standing Order No. 20, and I have ruled. I have nothing to add. I hope that there will be other opportunities to raise this matter.

Points, of Order

Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises out of the debate on RECHAR which you so kindly allowed me to initiate last week and during which the Under-Secretary of State responsible for consumer affairs argued fiercely that the Government's stance was absolutely correct, that they would not change it, and that it was legally entirely clear.
We discovered this morning that at much the same time the Secretary of State for the Environment was drafting a letter that says: "I believe"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Member, who has not been here long, that I cannot rule on whether what Ministers say is right or wrong. This is not a matter for me.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Just hear him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman leave the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) to me please—and that goes for his hon. Friends who are prompting him from either side, too? I am not responsible for answers given in the Chamber; I have no idea whether they are right or wrong. I am responsible for matters of order. Is this a matter of order?

Mr. Enright: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to accuse either of the gentlemen in question of misleading the House, because that would be unparliamentary, but it is important for the House to know which of them is right. Will the Prime Minister act as referee and tell us which half of the Cabinet he supports so that my constituency can get its RECHAR funds before Christmas?

Mr. Speaker: As long as the hon. Gentleman does not ask me to referee.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Haynes: Mine is. You have a wonderful opportunity, Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State for the Environment does not come here very often—but he happens to be here now. Get him on his feet!

Mr. Speaker: I cannot get the right hon. Gentleman on his feet now, although I will in a minute on the Local Government Finance Bill.

Dame Peggy Fenner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that I am not given to raising bogus points of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—but I ask you—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is it?

Dame Peggy Fenner: I accept the principle that, if you call a Member to explain why he wants to apply under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate on a subject, no one else may contribute; but if that Member mentions another's constituency and the concern felt by Medway port authority, one is still left with no way of

contributing. It is therefore unfortunate that we have no way of replying when our constituencies are mentioned in these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady should draw that to the attention of the Procedure Committee. I am bound by the rules, and the rule is that, on a Standing Order No. 20 application, only one three-minute speech may be made.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about something that arose in the Consolidated Fund Bill debates on the Adjournment last Thursday when we debated the question of pensions. During that debate some Opposition Members wished to quote what Members of the upper House who are directors of Maxwell companies said in the other place. I seek your guidance as to what the rules are about quoting speakers in the other place. We are able to quote our own record, Shakespeare and everybody else, but it appears that we cannot quote the report of the upper House.

Mr. Speaker: There is a strict rule about this. Ministers in the other place may be quoted but not Back-Bench speeches made in the same Session. The relevant passage in "Erskine May" is at page 375.

Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to know why there was so much delay before I knew that my question 7 on defence was to be linked to question 1. Without a tip-off from some of my colleagues, I would not have come to the Chamber: I would not have known and I could have lost the question. Secondly, how did the House decide on the linkage between my question 7 and question 1, which is a regional matter? Thirdly, what does it mean when the Minister says that "With permission", he will link questions? Whose permission is it—mine, yours, Mr. Speaker, or that of the House?

Mr. Speaker: This question is frequently raised with me. I regret to tell the hon. Member that "With permission" does not mean with my permission. It is merely a form of words; it is a convention. However, it is the Minister's responsibility to let hon. Members whose questions are linked know about this. I am surprised that this was not done, and I think that the hon. Member should take it up with the Minister concerned.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to place on record that I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that I proposed to raise the matter. The ports concerned covered too wide an area for one specific question.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw attention to the fact that a number of questions that I put down yesterday about the Security Service were blocked, as is usual. In one of those questions I asked the Prime Minister to make a statement——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a plain case of cheating. The hon. Member, whose question was not accepted, cannot read it out in the Chamber now.

Mr. Flynn: May I make the point to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this morning's papers this very matter was the


subject of a press release. If there is a new period of glasnost with MI5 or MI6, can it be extended to hon. Members and not limited to the press?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? You will probably be aware that the new head of MI5 has for the first time been identified. Questions have previously been refused by the Table Office because of the blocking system regarding the Security Service. Would it be possible for that to be reviewed in the light of the fact that the head of MI5 has been named? There is a spirit of glasnost, but only a bit, and many of us believe that the Security Service should be accountable to Parliament. In the absence of that, would it be possible for the Table Office to accept questions such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred, which until today have been blocked? I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will give this matter careful consideration.

Mr. Speaker: That has already been done. In the light of the new circumstances, the Table Office allows questions on certain matters.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) about the linkage of his question with question 1. It used to be the practice that, if an hon. Member was not present when the question with which his has been linked was answered, his question would be answered separately by the Minister when it was reached. That practice should still apply.

Mr. Speaker: Those are all matters that the Procedure Committee could well consider. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. So-called reforms frequently lead to other problems.

Armed Forces (Liability for Injury)

Mr. John Browne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that, in an action for liability in tort in a case involving the armed forces, a plaintiff need not in all cases show negligence on the part of the Crown.
My Bill would reverse the onus of proof of negligence for compensation for those armed services personnel who have sustained severe injuries in the course of their duties. It would ensure that, where obvious and serious injury was sustained by members of the armed forces in the course of their duties, compensation which would equate to that in civilian life would be paid by the Ministry of Defence as a matter of course unless the MOD could prove negligence on the part of the service people involved. That reverses the present onus of proof whereby injured service personnel must prove negligence on behalf of the mighty MOD, a Ministry which can and all too easily and often does withhold on the grounds of secrecy documents that are vital to proving a case of negligence.
Ours is a warrior nation. Because of that the men and women of our armed forces hold a special place in our hearts, at least in times of war. Sadly, in times of peace we are sometimes apt, as in Kipling's famous poem "Tommy", to take them for granted.
Because we truly are a warrior nation, probably all British people, including all hon. Members, yearly, on the vigil of Remembrance Sunday, echo those time-honoured words, "We will remember them". It is true, Mr. Speaker, we will remember them. But what about those who are not killed, or at least not quite? I speak of those who suffer horrific wounds but are saved from death by the miracles of modern science, good luck and their own outstanding mental fortitude. Many of them live on but are severely disabled. Do we truly remember them? The honest answer is yes; officially we do remember them, but not nearly well enough.
I believe that, regardless of political party, the British people feel that the Government should care more—much more—for our injured service men and, with regard to our armed forces, should be seen to be the very model of a good employer.
In 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) introduced the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill. It was a most progressive and well-intentioned Bill, supported by the MOD. In Committee, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), for whom I have the highest personal regard, set out the Government's three principles for settling these cases. He said:
we wish to settle out of court … in the interests of the plaintiffs…we are not seeking to set up legal barriers by employing a raft of lawyers to deter genuine plaintiffs…we shall proceed diligently and quickly to reach settlements. We shall not seek to protract cases.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C. 18 March 1987; c. 21–22.]
The Under-Secretary of State also mentioned another most interesting fact. He said that the civil service estimate of the financial cost of the Bill would be about £13 million per year after 10 years. Mr. Speaker, it is now some five years since that Act came into force and the total cost of claims is put at only £1 million a year. Yet the still-deformed bodies of some of our injured service men


are living proof of the injustice of under-compensation. As to under-compensation, those figures speak for themselves and confirm that is so.
I turn now to the case of the three injured Grenadier Guardsmen. I do so because theirs is a well known case, but sadly its settlement was a very rare exception.
In the summer of 1989, those Grenadiers were ordered to prepare a trench on the Batus live firing range in Canada. In digging, one of them struck a buried, unexploded anti-tank shell that had been fired some years before and lay concealed in the ground. The shell exploded, blowing the legs off all three Grenadiers. Their bodies were injured so badly that, despite prompt casevac, it took the best in medical science two years to nurse them back to sufficient health even to be invalided out of the armed forces.
A board of inquiry was convened, but while it concluded that none of the Grenadiers was to blame, the board was not even required to investigate why the blind shell was in the area used for trench digging, or whether or not all safety briefings had been effectively observed. Despite that, the House was told that no blame was attributable to anyone.
Eighteen months later, when the first Grenadier was invalided out of the Army, the Government appeared to dig in their heels at the very thought of paying compensation anywhere near that equating to the levels applicable in civilian life.
Those three men were cut down by devastating injuries in the prime of their youth. After their two-year ordeal, they were mentally drained, and were depressed by their immobility. Furthermore, they had no real personal wealth, yet the mighty Ministry of Defence challenged those mutilated Grenadiers to prove legal negligence. Worse still, the same Ministry withheld the the board of inquiry's full findings, which were vital to the guardsmen's case. The Ministry provided only an abridged version that left out the crucial damning details.
Where was the spirit of the Government's assurances to the Committee on 18 March 1987? They were ignored, and the Government fought those injured men to the last trench. We all know that pressure was brought in part by the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister personally intervened, and a just settlement was agreed. Those Grenadiers were lucky, but many, many more ex-service men in similar states of severe disablement have yet to receive anything like proper compensation. Something must be done fast to correct that great injustice.
My Bill sets out to do something at least for those most badly injured, by reversing the present unjust burden of proof. It would not open the floodgates to minor injury claims, for it would extend only to the most severe and obvious injuries, such as loss of limbs. My Bill is modest, and would come well within the Government's present budget of £13 million a year in respect of the 1987 Act. I commend it to the House—and if right hon. and hon. Members accept my Bill today, I beg the Government not to kill it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Browne, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir Russell Johnston, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Patrick Duffy, Mr. Michael Colvin and Mr. Churchill.

ARMED FORCES (LIABILITY FOR INJURY) BILL

Mr. John Brown accordingly presented a Bill to provide that, in an action for liability in tort in a case involving the armed forces, a plaintiff need not in all cases show negligence on the part of the Crown: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1992, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it about the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne)?

Mr. Winnick: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have raised this matter before on a number of occasions, as you may be aware—for instance, in Adjournment debates and during Question Time. One of the people mentioned by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) is a constituent of mine.
I am very pleased that the Government finally relented and that an agreement was reached. There are no differences between Conservative and Opposition Back Benchers on this important issue. I note, however, that, although an Opposition spokesman on defence is present, no defence Ministers are. That is very unfortunate. Do not Ministers consider the issue to be important?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by the Ministers who are present.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance Bill

2ND ALLOTTED DAY

As amended ( in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 1

COUNCIL TAX IN RESPECT OF DWELLINGS

Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 1, line 10, after 'beginning', insert
'in 1992, the Secretary of State shall by order provide that 100 per cent. of liability for personal community charge shall be eligible for community charge benefit and in the year beginning in '.
If there is one single step that we could take to relieve the suffering and misery of millions and, at the same time, remove chaos and costs from the administration of the last year of the poll tax, it is surely the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution. If we lived in a sensible world in which democracy worked effectively, that is what would happen, for hon. Members on both sides of the House have repeatedly pressed for the abolition of that contribution. Successive Conservative Members did so on 13 and 26 March.
I welcome the fact that the principle that no one should make a 20 per cent. minimum contribution to the Government's alternative to the poll tax has already been conceded, as has the principle that there should be no clawback from the amount allegedly put into benefits to compensate for that contribution; an announcement to that effect was made at a Government press conference.
Although we welcome those measures wholeheartedly, we wish to ask a simple question. The principle has been conceded; no clawback will take place after April 1993. Why can that not happen immediately? In Committee, the Minister of State said that the new tax would he a different tax. The poll tax was a people tax, he said—a personal tax—and it was therefore impossible to abolish the minimum contribution before the introduction of a property tax.
That is a trifle strange, because the 20 per cent. contribution was introduced under the old rating system. The Government have conceded that they were meddling with the previous principle of allowing those on nil or very low incomes to pay nothing when they introduced a 20 per cent. property tax contribution. They seem to think, however, that the principle that the poll tax must engender a universal contribution of at least 20 per cent. cannot be removed between now and April 1993.
The truth is that a dispute is in progress within the Government, and even within the Department of the Environment. The Secretary of State believes, and has made it clear—

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): Here we go.

Mr. Blunkett: We do not have to go far: we always find disagreement in the Conservative ranks. The Secretary of State believes that the contribution should have been

abolished months ago, and we are very pleased about that; the Under-Secretary of State—who, bless his cotton socks, lives in a world of his own—cannot even understand why we want to abolish it. When, a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a simple statement—that the 20 per cent. contribution should go now—the Minister said, "Why'?" The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities does not believe in the abolition of the 20 per cent., so we do not even have to debate with him why; he understands why he does not want it to be abolished. He thinks that every person, whatever their means—even if they have no income to pay it, which applies to 3 million women who are subject, with their husbands, to joint and several liability—should make a contribution, because he still believes in that charge. Everybody else, however, is left with the mess that has been created, not merely in terms of individual difficulty and suffering but in terms of the administrative and legal chaos engendered by the problems of collection. The cost of collection is something that even those who are willing to contemplate the misery of the poll tax are able to understand.
In the first short debate yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) raised the 20 per cent. question and the difficulty that faces students who have never been compensated for the 20 per cent. contribution, the Minister of State suggested that the Audit Commission had not come down firmly in favour of the abolition of contribution and questioned my hon. Friend's figures. It may be instructive, therefore—in order to prevent the waters from being muddied—to put on record what the Audit Commission said. In response to the Government's original consultation paper on the council tax, "A New Tax for Local Government", in paragraph 15 the Audit Commission said:
The administrative costs of the principle of universal payment of community charge are high. On average, after taking into account the uplift in income support which they have received, charge payers, who receive 80 per cent. relief, contributed about £6 a year net to the public purse in 1990–91.
In paragraph 16 the Audit Commission said:
Pursuing these defaulters for such small amounts is not a good use of scarce recovery resources when there are much larger debts outstanding.
In the document entitled "Administration of the Community Charge: Some Longer Term Considerations" the Audit Commission said:
Exempting 20 per cent. of payers would more than pay for itself and would ease the pressure on the system, particularly in areas where collection is very difficult, anyway.
Those clear quotations from what the Audit Commission said vindicate my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and suggest clearly that there is widespread support for abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution now in order to prevent the chaos that already exists over collecting the poll tax now.
I should have thought that the problems of collection would have been a matter of concern for anyone who claimed that he or she was in favour of probity and prudence in respect of public finance. The problems of collection are mirrored nationally in other forms of taxation, with £4 billion of tax outstanding from the last financial year in income tax, value-added tax, corporation tax and duties. Over £1 billion is outstanding on VAT. As much as £364 million of income tax was written off last


year, never mind awaiting collection. I must be compensating for some of that lost revenue because I am still trying to get the Inland Revenue to pay back some of the money that it owes me.
The problems of non-collection of the poll tax are exacerbated at local level in a way that none of us could have foreseen. We made strong predictions about the problems which would occur. That is why we believe that it is crucial to tackle them head on, not in the daft ways about which we heard in Committee. We were told that local authorities that were struggling to collect the tax should be penalised by ensuring that their services had to be cut still further—a more insensitive suggestion is unimaginable. Lord Boyd-Carpenter repeated that suggestion from somewhere in the depths of the countryside.
Inner-city local authorities have had to face the problems of deprivation, education, housing, transport, the environment, leisure and public health while struggling through the courts with the 7·5 million summonses which had to be taken out this year to enforce collection of the poll tax.
Conservatives in this House and in the other place have made stupid suggestions about how to deal with this genuine problem. Some people ask, "Could not the tax be collected through deductions in benefits?" The need to go through the courts and obtain deduction orders contributes to the administrative and legal difficulties. Even if deductions from benefits could be managed—suddenly, that has become a favoured solution to the problems engendered by inadequate incomes and by increased interest rates and mortgage charges—we cannot continue to pile deduction on deduction. There are deductions for mortgage interest payments, deductions for the direct fuel costs of people with small children or elderly relatives who would otherwise be threatened with having their service cut off, deductions for outstanding community care loans—another Government invention—and deductions for water charges.
One cannot have all those deductions and expect people to have their poll tax contributions deducted as well. They would be left with virtually no money with which to buy their food and clothes. Presumably, their only recourse would be to EEC handouts and the Salvation Army. If one took that into account—and presumably a gift at Christmas to salve someone else's conscience—they would still be left in the new year with the impossibility of making ends meet. That is the reality of the struggle that people face in paying the poll tax.
What are we to do? How do we persuade the Government about the reality? Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out the struggle that occurs in Strathclyde, which has faced an additional year of the poll tax, and the £34 million of cuts which had to be made to cope with last year's problems of non-collection. Those are real cuts and difficulties, not imagined ones.
Conservative Members would dismiss that point on the ground that a Labour authority cannot manage its affairs, but it would be difficult to pursue that case. Strathclyde council has never been pilloried as a loony-left council. It struggles with the problems that occur in major inner-city areas of Glasgow and a major rural hinterland.
We must try to persuade Conservative Members that there are other reasons why it would be prudent for them to agree to the abolition now of the 20 per cent. contribution. The cost of doing that would be small.
Conservative Members keep exaggerating what the cost of abolition would be. It seemed to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) in May and to myself in June and November that the cost of the 20 per cent. contribution kept going up, sometimes by as much as £200 million! It has been spelt out again and again—and I have already mentioned the Audit Commission—that the cost of not collecting or of struggling to collect is so great that it would be a saving if we abolished the 20 per cent. now. It would allow local authorities to concentrate specifically on those people who can afford to pay the poll tax but who are currently not paying. It would allow them to ensure that their administrative time, their legal expertise and the time of the courts could be spent in endeavouring to do what Conservative Members are constantly telling us should be done and which they now have the opportunity to help us to do.
Abolition would not only help those who are struggling to raise the 20 per cent. contribution but would have a beneficial economic effect nationally. [Interruption.] I might be able to enlighten the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), if he listens carefully. I am keen that he should understand why we want to abolish the 20 per cent. in case he again makes the mistake of saying that he does not understand why. The national debt is also dramatically affected by the non-collection rate. Authorities have to borrow to pay the basic revenue running costs and because the cost of borrowing is so great for them, and because the increased public sector borrowing requirement to cover that has an effect on the national debt and on the inflation rate, it is important that the Government take that into account. In that way, we might persuade the Government that the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution could help to solve the problems of the nation as a whole.
Abolition would not cost very much because nobody has been able to prove what the true cost would be. In Committee I think it was the Minister of State who for the first time came up with some figures for the earmarked contribution. For next year I think that he suggested that with the uprating the figure would be £1·40 a week for a single adult under the age of 25. That is the contribution that they claim that they have made towards the amount that has to be raised, but only a few months ago the Government made their position very clear. They said:
There is no specific amount for the community charge in any one individual's benefit."—[Official Report, 27 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 446.]
The Government said that the compensation formed "an integral part" of overall rates. Either it does or it does not; either it is included in those benefits as a general contribution or it is not. The abolition of the contribution and the decision which has been taken for 1993 that it should not be clawed back could easily be applied to the poll tax. If it were, there would not only be a sigh of relief from those affected but we could get on with the job of trying to see out the poll tax in a reasonably orderly fashion.
Those on the lowest incomes and those who are struggling to pay the 20 per cent. contribution and to make ends meet would not only be relieved of the contribution


but would have gained their share of the benefit from the switch to value added tax. Those on the least income were the ones who gained the least from having the £140 flat rate reduction last March, but they end up having to pay the VAT increase for the benefit of those who gained most.
I hope that the Government will take on board what I have said and will be willing to respond in a reasonably acceptable fashion. I have presented the case without rhetoric and in a mild and gentle fashion. I have not even had to resort to my box of tissues which I offered round in Committee to try to avoid getting the cold that I now have. I hope that I have managed to get across a reasonable case in a reasonable fashion.
If there was ever time when the Prime Minister could make reality of the gentle rhetoric of his conversion from the harsh and uncaring doctrines of she who nurtured him—and he has shown no real signs of that in domestic, political and social policy—it is now through this measure. The Government should abolish the 20 per cent. contribution and help the individuals affected which would help to abolish the poll tax with some semblance of order, financial competence and common sense. It is not a lot to ask.

If the Government abolish the 20 per cent. contribution now—they may choose to do so just before the election—they would do a great favour to millions of people who are not written about in the papers, who do not appear on front-line news programmes on television and who probably do not even get a mention on "Yesterday in Parliament". We are not talking about 100,000 people who

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I will make some brief points which arise from the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He said that if it is expensive to collect a tax, it should not be imposed or collected. I hope that that will be the principle of any Labour Administration who take office in the 21st century. It will be very expensive to collect my tax, so I look forward to its not being imposed.
There is a slight contradiction in one concept. We always hear from the Opposition that local authorities are starved of money, yet it is proposed that local authorities should be more starved of money by exempting people who, I take it, the Opposition imagine might vote for them from having to pay anything into the kitty.
There is nothing unfair about what the hon. Member for Brightside calls the poll tax, which is in fact the community charge. It is a simple licence fee for local authority services. If we have the benefit of those services—I do not—we use them. What is wrong with paying a licence fee for that? To bleat that there are people who cannot afford it, although they can afford to drink in pubs, to have television sets, to run motor cars, to go to football matches and the like, is special pleading. It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Brightside should suggest that if it is expensive, as it is, to collect something as simple as a television licence fee, one should merely be told that one does not have to pay. If it is expensive for somebody to clean out the dustbin, presumably one does not get the dustbin cleaned. That is the other side of the coin. Under the socialist millennium and other Kinnocchio, we shall
have in our imperial concept—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to refer to the Leader of the Opposition by such a name.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was not referring to the Leader of the Opposition, because it does not occur to me that he will ever be Prime Minister of Britain. I was referring to an imaginary empire.

Mr. John Maxton: First, the hon. and learned Gentleman obviously has not grasped the point. What we propose will save local authorities money by taking away from them the duty to collect the 20 per cent. charge. Secondly, can we assume from the nature of the speech that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making that he intends to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill at 10 o'clock tonight? What he is saying does not match the principles of the council tax. There will be 100 per cent. rebates, so many people will have nothing to pay for local services. He opposes not the socialist millennium, but the millennium of his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have not yet come to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I am dealing with the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. What I do at 10 o'clock tonight is a matter which is deep in my conscience and will not be revealed even to the Whips at this time.
The philosophy of the Opposition is easy to follow. It goes this way: "The local authorities are starved of money. Those whom we think will vote for us should not have to contribute to that money." Are we seriously saying that, because it costs as much to issue a 1s 6d postal order as it does to issue a £25 postal order, the people who buy the Is 6d ones should not have to pay for them? That is essentially what the hon. Member for Brightside is saying. It is a fatuous concept.
If the hon. Member for Brightside can produce for me cases of people who have deprived themselves of paying the television licence fee or the car tax, never go to a pub and live in meanness because of the 20 per cent. factor, I will say hurrah. But I believe that the whole thing is a charade of whingeing and whining, complaints and mercy begging. Let us all simply pay our licence fee for local authority services. Let the Opposition stop complaining that local authorities are underfunded while suggesting measures by which they should be further underfunded.

Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) has completely missed the point. We are well aware that he does not like the new council tax and that he favours the poll tax. That is fair enough. He has made his objections clear. I respect his view, although I do not agree with it for many reasons, which we discussed in Committee. One reason is that the tax should be based on a person's ability to pay. That is what it is all about.
By no stretch of the imagination could we say that many of the people caught by the 20 per cent. rule have the ability to pay. That is why they do not pay. There is no question of going to football matches for the people who pay the 20 per cent. There is no question of having a car or going out to the pub at night. They simply cannot afford it. Many of them have about £42 a week to live on, to clothe themselves and so on. On the social argument alone, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman touched, we


should do away with the 20 per cent. rule because the people to whom it applies are the least able to care for themselves with the money that they have.
But we do not argue on the social point. We are arguing on the basis of the cost of collecting the 20 per cent. I see my borough treasurer fairly regularly. The local authority is short of money because of the difficulties that it faces. When we debate the standard spending assessment, we will deal with the reasons why the authority is short of money. When we discussed the new council tax, the borough treasurer wanted two things. One was to stop having to collect the 20 per cent. from people whom he was having to pursue through the courts. If they cannot pay the 20 per cent., how can they pay the 20 per cent. plus the cost of going to court? That does not bear argument and will merely increase the debt.
In Committee, we argued about the impossible position in which local authorities would find themselves when they tried to collect the poll tax. My local authority, which is small compared to many, made 60,000 alterations to the register in nine months of the financial year. It issued 57,007 reminder notices, 46,164 final notices and 12,457 summonses.
The police can no longer take the summonses out as they are too bogged down. If they do, the courts cannot deal with them because they are too bogged down. My authority has issued 9,680 liability orders and 5,698 financial information requests and has authorised attachment of earnings in 438 cases, attachment of income support in 371 and issued 149 warrants to bailiffs.
All those transactions w ill continue while the authority introduces the new tax. The death of the poll tax arid the birth of the new council tax are causing problems within the financial department and the treasurer asks two things: first, do away with the 20 per cent. rule and, secondly, allow local authorities to design the new format for the tax, rather than running it centrally. The people on the ground are more capable of dealing with the problem than are central Government.
The disadvantages of the 20 per cent. rule for local authorities—its collection, the routine of trying to get it, and finishing up in court—so far outweigh the financial benefits which accrue from it that it would save them money if they could do away with it. Under the old system, local authorities would review the rent liabilities—people who had not paid the rent and thus had not paid the rates, as they were built into the rent structure. As hon. Members will know, treasurers used to cut their losses. When they felt that it would cost more to pursue liabilities than they were likely to get back, they wiped out the liability. That is what is happening at present with those people who have to pay 20 per cent.
If borough treasurers find that they have crossed over the border and can no longer recoup their money, surely in any financial circles it would be argued that it would be sensible for them to cut their losses. If authorities pursue 20 per cent. of the tax through the courts, they will only get themselves into more debt rather than recoup their money.
Abolition of the 20 per cent. rule would give local authorities room to manoeuvre to pursue those who owe the largest amount, as it would release staff, and save police time and court time. It would be a saving all the way down the line, rather than a loss. It seems too ridiculous for words if, for the sake of ideology, we force local authorities to spend more to recover less. It is time that we considered the problem more seriously than the

Government have done until now. Let us do away with the tax and get down to the business of running local authorities in a sensible way.

Mr. Bill Walker: It will not surprise Opposition Members who served on the Standing Committee that I rise to speak on the amendment because we must consider what the Opposition are asking. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), in reasonable terms, suggested that we should allow local authorities to wipe out the responsibility of those who fall into the 20 per cent. community charge category, and that we should put that in the statute—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am merely quoting back what the hon. Gentleman said in his speech. The Opposition give the cost of collection as the reason.

Mr. Blunkett: For the sake of clarity, I must put it on record that we did not suggest an indemnity, or wiping out the debt that is currently owed.

Mr. Walker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that clear, because it is a fundamental point.
The important aspect of the argument of the hon. Member for Brightside was that, because of the cost of collecting the debt and the involvement of so much manpower—he drew attention to the situation in Strathclyde, and the splendid councillors there; I imagine that that is why Strathclyde is so short of policemen—[Interruption.] The Opposition are suggesting that, if their proposal were adopted, local authorities would be able to concentrate their energies on collecting the remainder of the debt. He claimed that some people were able to pay but had not paid.
4.30 pm
What is to prevent a local authority from taking that action now? If a local authority wished to separate debts between the 20 per cent. and other categories—it would not be difficult to do that because it is clear from the value of the debt whether people are in the 20 per cent. or another category—it could chase the outstanding higher debts. That would be a businesslike and logical approach to the problem. Obviously, one should go for the bigger debts first. The cost of collection makes that the logical approach to take. That would allow the authority the scope that the hon. Gentleman claims the amendment would provide. In other words, I argue that authorities already have that scope if they wish to use it.

Mr. Maxton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The local authority determines whom it takes to court and which debts are chased. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) explained what happened with rent arrears. As he said, when it was known that certain arrears would never be recouped—because the cost of chasing them would be so great—they were written off.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman served, as I did, in Committee on the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and will be aware that the law was changed under that measure in terms of collection between the rating system and the poll tax. He is right to say that, under the old rating system, the local authority had the ability to write off a sum if it wished to do so. That course


is no longer available to an authority under the new system, and that is one reason why we are in our present mess.

Mr. Walker: The proposal about which I was speaking was put forward by Labour Members, and I was simply commenting on it. Local authorities can chase such debts as they determine in law shall be chased. If authorities do not chase higher debts, as against those in the 20 per cent. category, it is their decision not to go after them. I understood the hon. Member for Brightside to claim that Strathclyde faced financial problems because of the number of people in the 20 per cent. category and the need for the authority to use so much manpower to chase that debt. He went on to say what ratio of the total debt was represented by the number of people in the 20 per cent. category.

Mr. Maxton: Representing 70 per cent.

Mr. Walker: Yes, 70 per cent. of the debt in Strathclyde, being the number in the 20 per cent. category. Hence, the authority should be chasing those in the 30 per cent. category, if it thinks it can get the money which is owed.

Mr. Maxton: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not understand Scottish law on this matter, and I leave it to my English hon. Friends to deal with the law applying to authorities elsewhere in the country. Local authorities in Scotland are obliged to take out warrants against those in debt. The Act instructs them to do that. Once a warrant is taken out, it is for the sheriff officer to decide who will and who will not be proceeded against.

Mr. Walker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consults his former hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about that, for he probably knows more about the detail of the provision of the Act than any other hon. Member. Having travelled the route of a non-payer, he was on the receiving end of what a local authority is capable of doing under the law as it stands. The hon. Gentleman's case fell down because he said that, if we gave local authorities the ability to write off and do what they wished with the 20 per cent. payers, they could then concentrate their energies on the rest. Nothing under the present legislation stops them proceeding against those who cannot pay but should pay.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is simply confusing the argument, and I suspect that he is doing so deliberately.
In a previous incarnation, I used to issue warrants. I was a provincial solicitor for the South of Scotland electricity board, so I know the warrant system perfectly well. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, before the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, agents acting on behalf of a person who was owed money, whether substantial or insignificant sums, could pick and choose between the debtors against whom they proceeded.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkwood: I shall give way in due course.
It is significant that, under the 1987 legislation, local authorities were obliged to take out warrant proceedings against all and sundry. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) may speak about this point, but I understand that the only discretion allowed by the 1987 Act was that priority could be given to the order in which instructions were given to sheriff officers to pursue debtors. Local authorities had discretion to that extent only. If that is what the hon. Member for Tayside, North is trying to say in his confused way, I agree with him, but I suspect that he is pursuing the argument simply to confuse the matter, which amounts to administrative chaos and much hardship for those who cannot pay.

Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is getting it right.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is encouraging.
I have been following the argument from a social security viewpoint. Alas, I was not privileged to be one of the chosen few who served on the Standing Committee, although I read some of the proceedings with interest. When the Minister winds up, will he say what consideration the Department gave to that question before the legislation? I perfectly understand the exigencies of a political emergency that had to be dealt with quickly, but was active consideration given to dealing with that problem and abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution? What is the current assessment of the cost of that? It would be helpful to the debate if the Minister could say a word about that, because his Department must have an estimate, although it may be difficult to arrive at an accurate figure.
I welcomed the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security that compensation would not be clawed back, because £700 million is not an insignificant figure. There was much uncertainty about whether the Government would go all the way and haul that money back out of the pockets of those who qualified for income support, to add to the other misery that such people were suffering. The Government's made the right response to that problem.
Nevertheless, the problem in Scotland is peculiar to the extent that the legislation applied for a 12-month additional period. Nineteen-eighty-nine was a particularly difficult period for those on low incomes, because they had just begun to feel the effects of the Social Security Act 1986, which took effect in 1988. Water rates, particularly north of the border but also I suspect in other parts of the country, started to bite. Many people lost single payments to which they were entitled. Much of the transitional relief was taken out of the system as the relief funds that had quite rightly been introduced ran out.
The combination of all those factors in 1989–90, particularly in Scotland, took a heavy toll of pensioners who used to qualify for supplementary pensions and, under the new income support system, received pensioner premiums. Much hardship was caused. All of us north of the border—I speak for all parties—heard people on low incomes, particularly pensioners, explain how they simply could no longer make ends meet. When two-pensioner households had to pay two 20 per cent. contributions, it made the difference between profit and loss. Those who had previously been able to manage found that the combination of changes, including the 20 per cent. contribution, made it impossible for them to make ends meet.
As a result, a high proportion—some estimates make it 15 per cent., some as high as 40 per cent.—of people subject to the 3 million warrants issued north of the border have found it impossible to make ends meet. Discussions that I have held with representatives of citizens advice bureaux and other poverty pressure groups suggest that there is a continuing problem which has been rolling on since 1989–90 during the two or three years of the poll tax. Those problems are getting worse.
Many pensioners are now taking recourse in the deregulated credit market; they borrow money from money lenders. Some of them buy their consumer durables and clothing from catalogues that enable them to buy on credit. Many of them are storing up problems that will get worse before they get better. The Department had a duty to consider that combination of circumstances, and I hope that the Minister will say that that aspect has at least been considered. The Department faced a difficult political problem, and, like everyone else, I welcome the fact that the poll tax has been abandoned. However, when considering alternatives, the Department had a duty to consider all the circumstances before it opted for the Bill.
It is a great shame, a tragedy, that the opportunity was not taken to abolish that level of difficulty in 1992, as the amendment suggests. I accept that it may have been expensive to do so. However, no other single act of the Government could have more effectively ameliorated the continuing problems of financing the poll tax.
I subscribe entirely not just to the content of the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), but to the way in which he deployed the argument. I do not think that we should give the issue a high political profile, although of course it contains political aspects. The hon. Gentleman made his proposal in a measured way. His suggestion was underscored by the essential administrative argument and the Audit Commission's claims, which I think are now widely accepted by hon. Members.
Huge administrative costs are involved in collecting the 20 per cent. contribution from those who are least well-off and sending out poll tax book after poll tax book through doors every time there is a change, keeping the registers up to date and employing extra staff in local government. One aspect that riled people in the small market towns that I represent in south-east Scotland involved the adverts that were seen week after week for local government officials in finance departments on wages that were, for my part of the country, relatively high. Such officers were being employed in droves. New computer equipment and computer operatives were also being taken on to keep the administration under control.
They have managed to do remarkably well in south-east Scotland, where the non-payment rate is relatively low. That is because people in my district of the country are honest, law-abiding citizens, as they were in the 16th century, when they used to murder Englishmen with gay abandon. We celebrate that every year in our common riding festivals, to which hon. Members are hereby invited——

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): rose——

Mr. Kirkwood: I give way to the Minister, who is obviously going to come next summer.

Mr. Stewart: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the honesty and integrity of his constituents. I hope that he will agree that the other reason why Borders regional council has done well in collecting the tax is that, from the outset, it enthusiastically tried to maximise collection.

Mr. Kirkwood: Yes, that is absolutely right. One scheme that the council came up with, of which I was fortunate enough to be able to take advantage, was the allowance of a small discount for people who paid straight away. That worked extremely well. However, such a system is open to people such as me, but not to all my constituents.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman refer to the record? In the Borders in October 1990, 42 per cent. of the community tax was unpaid and in October 1991 it was 49 per cent. Is that what the hon. Gentleman considers a relatively good record?

Mr. Kirkwood: Yes, it is for that stage of the year. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the end-of-year figures, he will see that the total collection rate is 96 and 97 per cent. Therefore, he will find that the lower percentage was a statistical freak.
It would create huge administrative costs and be sheer lunacy to proceed with the tax for the year 1991–92, which will be an extremely difficult year for many people on low incomes. It would fly in the face of the evidence from local authorities, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and other organisations that have studied the problems. The Government should accept the timeous amendment, which will make a substantial difference to those who are least welloff and would go a long way to easing the transition between the hated poll tax and the new council tax when—God help us—it is introduced in 1993.

Mr. John Bowis: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) started by saying that he agreed with the Labour party spokesman and ended up by giving a fine display of how community charge collection could work in practice. Perhaps that explains why his pressing bid to serve on the Bill's Committee was rejected by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who leapt in to take her rightful place.
I question two aspects of the amendment: first, what it says and, secondly, what the Opposition have said it says and their reasons for doing so. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) waxed gently but eloquently in favour of the abolition of the 20 per centers. I do not believe that the amendment removes the 20 per centers. If it did, there would be a considerable new poverty trap for the many people who are one step above the income support requirements and who consequently miss out on so many benefits. There would be a sudden drop from the 20 per cent. qualifying level to zero. The amendment produces a sliding scale down from 100 per cent to zero, to which I do not object in principle—it is something that we shall enact in future legislation.
However, the hon. Member for Brightside cannot suggest that everyone on a 20 per cent. charge will be excluded from payment under his proposals. In addition, he cannot say that the collection problems will be less, as instead of pursuing people for their 20 per cent. bills he would have to pursue them for 1, 2 and 5 per cent. bills.

Mr. Blunkett: I want the hon. Gentleman to concede that if the taper were kept at the present 15p, as opposed to sharpening it to the 20p proposed for council tax benefit for 1993, people would be better off with the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution—with 100 per cent. available rebate. Instead of being penalised from 1993, as some who are struggling just above benefit levels will be, they will be pleased to find that they, too, are helped.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my point. He suggested that a few people who have their charge removed altogether might benefit, but I maintain that the sliding scale would still exist, which would make the system that much more difficult to implement.
So much for the wording of the amendment; what about its purpose, as spelt out by the hon. Member for Brightside? It is supposed to relieve people who are liable for up to 20 per cent. of the charge. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is in his hands and those of his colleagues in local government to relieve such people in the coming year. We already have a system to enable people to meet the challenge and remove the charge from everyone on income support. All that local authorities need to do is set their spending requirements at such a level that they come in at or below target. The 20 per cent. of community charge incorporated in the income support system will then pay, or more than pay, the amount required by local authorities.
It has been said time and again that my council provides good-quality services at low cost. I do not wish to repeat the fact that this year and next we will have a zero charge, good though that is. I want to cite the fact that last year we had a £148 charge. This year, before the Budget change, we had a £136 charge. So we are talking about collecting from our 20 per centers about 50p a week, which is more than adequately compensated for in the income support system. Each and every one of my less well off constituents benefited considerably—they were in pocket as a result of the system.
The system that enabled that to happen depends crucially on good management by local authorities, on councils looking after taxpayers' money that they receive from the centre and charge payers' money that they collect locally, and on their spending it wisely. My borough of Wandsworth has achieved the zero charge so that every less well off constituent is in pocket, not by means of additonal grant from Government—as I have often said, the neighbouring borough of Lambeth received one third more in Government grant last year, has done so this year and will next year—but by spending the money wisely.
The ability to set a low charge while maintaining quality is entirely due to the fact that over the past decade my council has been able to make £50 million efficiency savings. Let us compare that with the activities of many Labour authorities. The Labour-run council of Leeds, for instance, sent about 800 people to celebrate twinning

arrangements in Germany, at a cost of about £76,000. Was that really the right priority, the one that the less well off people of Leeds wanted?

Mr. John Battle: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts and spell out to the House the precise amount of the contribution of the local chamber of commerce, which wanted to establish trade links.

Mr. Bowis: I even missed out one item: the sum of £17 a day expedition given to each of 12 councillors who accompanied the 800.
The former leader of Wakefield council had his room rebuilt three times in four years. He then moved into the chief executive's office because his room was not big enough and had a shower installed in it. When a new chief executive arrived, he decided that his room was not big enough either and had it expanded at a cost of £16,000. Wakefield council spent up to £1·5 million refurbishing the town hall. Are these priorities helping the less well off people in these boroughs, or are those councils overspending wastefully? Those Labour authorities could not care a fig about the less well off—if they could, they would ensure that their spending was on target so that the element of 20 per cent. in the income support system would pay for poor people's contributions.

Mr. Allen McKay: It is all very well the hon. Gentleman pointing a finger at some councils' expenditure without asking why it was incurred in the first place. We in Parliament need more room across the road and have spent millions of taxpayers' money on moving across the road. The hon. Gentleman is in favour of that, but he complains about local authorities doing the same. He did not mention Wandsworth's standard spending assessment, but could he tell me why it costs my authority £1 less per person to run the authority than it costs Westminster? Why does Westminster get £2 a head to educate its children when my authority gets only £1? Where is the justice in that? The hon. Gentleman should give us the whole story and compare like with like.

Mr. Bowis: We certainly should compare like with like and it is difficult to do that across the country, but we can do it across boundaries in London, where it is fair to compare allocations. One third more is allocated to Lambeth than to Wandsworth, but the latter makes the money work efficiently so that costs are kept down.
I was not talking about debt charges; I was talking about £1·5 million redecorating costs and questioning that sort of priority. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman occupies a lavish new office. I still make do with my shared office in Dean's Yard. No doubt one day it will be brought up to the standard to which the hon. Gentleman has become accustomed.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend is right to illustrate some of the absurd spending by Labour councils. Our Labour-controlled county council wanted to close an old people's home in my constituency for want of a few thousand pounds, yet it cleaned up the front entrance to county hall and carved the name "Nottinghamshire County Council" in stone over the entrance—as though we did not know that is what it was called. It also carved the name of every councillor to win a seat two years before, at a cost of £250,000. It is that sort of absurd expenditure which irritates us.

Mr. Bowis: That is an eloquent example of exactly what I am talking about. I should imagine that Nottinghamshire carved her name with shame, not with pride.
I close with two more reasons why overspending can lead to overcharging vulnerable people and they explain why we get angry when we hear Labour Members talking about vulnerable people. Their wasteful policies result in poor people paying more. I refer first to collection. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire rightly highlighted his council's policy in this respect and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed what he said. Most good collectors are Conservative councils, but not all. There are councils of all parties and of none which manage to collect. Salford manages to collect 103 per cent. of target and Gateshead collects 104 per cent.; so we know that Labour authorities can do it, too. That must include a large number of people on the 20 per cent. who are paying legally and rightly, if not willingly, and at least doing their duty by their fellow citizens.
The campaigns that we have seen by the Opposition parties—not, I must say, the Liberal Democrats, but some other parties, particularly the Labour party—to persuade people not to pay have resulted in surcharges on the vulnerable this year. Those surcharges stand as a record of shame to the Labour party and to any other party that supports that policy of non-payment. The people who are having to pick up the tab for that policy and that connivance in non-payment are not just the Mr. and Mrs. Average in any constituency, but the less well off, those who are in receipt of income support, but who have honestly paid their contributions and now find that people better off than them are causing them to be surcharged to pay for that non-payment.

5 pm

Mr. Maxton: First, as an hon. Member who presumably supported his Government in wasting £14 billion on imposing this tax, the hon. Gentleman might show some humility and apology rather than doing what he is doing. Secondly, will he stop smearing the Labour party as regards non-payment? The Labour party has been absolutely clear in its opposition to non-payment of the poll tax. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) will bear out, we have always opposed non-payment as a policy and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Bowis: When I see the leaders of the hon. Gentleman's party throwing out hon. Members on the Benches behind him who advocated non-payment and throwing out leaders of councils throughout the country who have advocated non-payment, I will accept from him lessons about standing four square behind law and order and willingness to pay one's taxes.
This is a debate about the 20 per centers. The Bill introduces a scale down to zero. I do not disagree with the principle of that scale for the future, because once we move to the new tax, when in theory at least the system will change in terms of both income support and the community charge, we are into a new ball game. I am very happy to add as a postcript, as a result of my question to Social Security Ministers, that everyone on income support is given the added bonus. They will not have to hand over to the councils the 20 per cent. element in income support because of the new scale; they will have the

benefit of keeping that in their pockets. So the whole country will benefit, as citizens of Wandsworth have to date.

Mr. Battle: The contribution or the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) came across as a last-ditch defence of the poll tax. I shall be surprised if the hon. Gentleman does not vote against the council tax, on the basis that he would prefer the poll tax to remain. Some of his speech sounded exactly like the arguments that we had when the poll tax was introduced—a mish-mash of half-baked myths and half-truths about Labour local authorities and others which do not stand close scrutiny. They are unfounded allegations that could be challenged anywhere within or outside the House.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Leeds city council, which has never been rate-capped or poll tax-capped. Indeed, Conservative Ministers have commended the prudence of Leeds city council. He may find that he will fall out with some members of his own party who support trade links with Europe, while he seems to be running with the Prime Minister and suggesting that we should blow cold on Europe and not build the vital trade links that our cities need to ensure that our industries are taken through to the next century and not rubbed out by this Government's economic policies.
Getting back to the amendment, I find it difficult to understand why the Government are holding out any longer—or, more precisely, who in the Government is holding out—against withdrawing the 20 per cent. rule from next April. Why can it not go through tonight? There are overwhelming arguments for getting rid of it from next April. We would welcome the reintroduction of the 100 per cent. rebate, with the council tax as part of that. It is the only part of the council tax Bill so far which has met with universal acclaim.
There is also general relief, as others have said, that the Government agreed in Committee that there would be no clawback of the compensation element when the council tax is introduced. That is welcome, because it perpetuated a further injustice in the poll tax. Now that the Government have got as far as accepting the principle that there should he no minimum contribution to local government, it is hard to see why the question of timing should hold matters up. It seems to me that that is all that is left; it is simply a question of the timing of the introduction. It certainly cannot be the principle of the 100 per cent. rebate, because that is now universally accepted.
It has been helpful that some Government Members agree with us that the 20 per cent. rule should be abolished now. I was on television with the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) on the "Scrutiny" programme when he agreed that it would be much better if the Government abolished the 20 per cent. rule now; and I know that he is not alone. Many Tory Members agree with that point of view.
That reflects a change of approach by Conservative Members. I believe that they all see and acknowledge that the time is now up for the 20 per cent. minimum rule, on which the former Prime Minister insisted. I hope that the Government will accept our amendment tonight and agree that it is unnecessary to perpetuate that injustice.
All that seems to remain is a lingering confusion about what means-tested income support is and what it is supposed to do. Income support is not part of the tax system, whether local or income tax. It is for people who


pay no tax because they are on a very low income or have no job. It should be separated, and is separated by the benefits system, from the tax system. It is part of the income maintenance system and should never have been confused with the taxation system. From the start the Government have presented that basic contradiction in their ideology. They have insisted on the notion of universality, that all must pay, regardless of their ability to pay, or, more important, their inability to pay and regardless of their lack of income. It may, on the face of it, seem laudable that everybody should make some contribution. The problem is that that principle comes into direct conflict with a means-tested benefit system, where people are asked what income they have and, if they do not have an income, are given support from the state.
The Government now refer to means testing as "targeting". The problem is that universality clashes and cannot operate with means testing, or targeting. Universality and means testing are incompatible. That is the basic contradiction built into the poll tax from the outset and that is why it is unfair to poorer people.
The whole purpose of income support is to support the incomes of poorer people. It can be argued that everybody should pay their rent and rates or rent and poll tax and we agree with that. But people should not be expected to pay them out of income support if no allowances have been put into income support in the first place. If they have no other source of income, because they have no jobs, the money that they receive from income support should pay their basic bills. That is the basis of income support, but the Government approach has been to lower the level of income support and to deduct, as it were, rent, rates or poll tax. As a result, that income support has been penalised and that is the injustice in the poll tax. I believe that it is not necessary to continue it any longer.
I remind the House of the history of the 20 per cent. rule. Until 1 April 1988, all those on supplementary benefit, as it was then called, received a 100 per cent. rebate if they paid rates because the system was means tested. If someone did not have enough money to pay his or her bills, the principle could take that into account.
The new system of income-related benefit which was introduced in April 1988 allowed only those who received rate rebates to qualify for a maximum rebate of 80 per cent. Everyone at that stage was required to pay 20 per cent. of the rates. In other words, the 20 per cent. principle was introduced during the last year of the rates to prepare for the universal principle of the poll tax. Therefore, the principle of the 20 per cent. contribution was simply carried forward from the end of the rate rebate system to the poll tax rebate system. No matter how low one's income, everyone was required to pay at least 20 per cent. of his or her poll tax bill.
I am surprised that the Government have now conceded that that principle is unjust and are prepared to return to the full 100 per cent. qualification for rebates from April 1993. The Government appear to have acknowledged that they were wrong to try to use the income support system as a means of deducting local tax, or the poll tax as it was.
Why are the Government holding out against all critical opposition, whether from the Labour party, public bodies outside the House, other parties and even some

Conservative Members from the Back and Front Benches? There seems to be no logic or economical reason for holding to the 20 per cent. rule any longer. There certainly is no reason of principle.
I emphasise that those people who have been asked to pay the 20 per cent. minimum contribution may have had to face severe financial difficulties. I am sure that most hon. Members will have heard from such people at their advice surgeries, particularly pensioners, who say that the 20 per cent. contribution can cause real hardship if poll tax levels are high. Nor do those levels have to be above the rate for poll tax capping. That should have been taken into account. When the poll tax was introduced, it was simply assumed that 20 per cent. was a notional figure and that people could chip in a small amount to make a contribution because it would not make a real difference to their disposable incomes. In fact, as we have all learnt during the past few years, that 20 per cent. can make a considerable difference to people's incomes.
It was the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), one of the great architects of the poll tax, who, in The Guardian on 8 March, said:
The charge is higher than people on low incomes can afford because the rebate system has become totally inadequate. It was designed in 1988 when we expected community charges to be much lower than they turned out to be.
I agree with that statement. It precisely highlights the problem.
In the responses to the consultation paper "A new tax for local government", those calling for the immediate abolition of the minimum 20 per cent. contribution included the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Rating and Valuation Association, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of London Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Society of London Treasurers. In other words, evidence of the need to abolish immediately the 20 per cent. payment has been building up.
In support of the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution, the audit commissioners said:
It is worth mentioning one change which would assist authorities in their current collection arrangements and therefore, indirectly, facilitate the introduction of the council tax.
That has to be a helpful suggestion. It is a friendly remark suggesting to the Government that the abolition of the 20 per cent. rule will ease in the council tax and ensure that the kind of confusion and chaos that we have seen in local government finance in the past year is not repeated next year.
5.15 pm
In a memorandum in March this year the Child Poverty Action Group said:
The strong reluctance to make this change—
the immediate restoration of the 100 per cent. rebate
stems from the principle underlying the poll tax that everyone should make a financial contribution to local services. We believe this argument is flawed on both principle and pragmatic grounds.
The Government have already accepted the principle that the 20 per cent. contribution is flawed. That is why they decided to reintroduce the 100 per cent. rebate. I hope that the Minister will not cling to it. When he gave his press conference on 28 November he seemed to suggest that it would be inappropriate to introduce some of the changes and that it would be better to wait and introduce all the


changes at the same time under the new system. He seemed to be arguing that, as long as the poll tax had a shelf life, the principle that everyone must pay regardless should be held to, as though it were irrevocably wedded to the principle of the poll tax. I hope that he does not believe that; that he now fully subscribes to the notion that there should be a 100 per cent. rebate system. The working out of the income and benefit system is different from that of the tax system, whether it is based on property or personal income, or on a combination of the two, as is the council tax. I hope that the Minister is not holding on to a residual principle that everyone must pay.
On 26 March, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said:
About 70 per cent. of defaulters are those who are supposed to pay 20 per cent."—[Official Report, 26 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 858.]
If the 20 per cent. deduction has become the problem of the whole system, it is nonsense to continue for a further year. If that is the case, it should be tackled now, not simply compounded, allowing problems to build up in the future.
I hope that the Minister will take seriously the Audit Commission's argument for abolishing the 20 per cent. minimum contribution. In its report, "Administration of the Community Charge: Some Longer-term Considerations", it says:
exempting 20 per cent. payers would more than pay for itself and would ease the pressure on the system, particularly in areas where collection is very difficult anyway."
If the Government cannot accept the amendment and do not agree to abolish the 20 per cent. rule now, the inevitable result will be that the problems that have been experienced this year will be experienced on exactly the same scale, if not worse, next year. It must be good economic management and common sense to abolish that 20 per cent. contribution now.
We are pleased that the Government have at least acknowledged in principle that the 20 per cent. rule should go, but I hope that the Minister can now assure me that there are no pragmatic reasons for not making the change now to be effective from next April rather than having to wait longer. Not many changes were made to the Bill in Committee, but I hope that, as on the clawback, the Government will say that the amendment is common sense and that they are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Harry Cohen: In a rare moment of wit in Committee, the Minister referred to one Labour policy as Rowland revaluation—rolling revaluation. The Conservatives who supported the poll tax should be called "Bill 'em High" and their corollary "Owen a Lot". Certainly a lot of people owe the 20 per cent. minimum charge under the poll tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, it has been said in the House that about 70 per cent. of all poll tax defaulters come in the 20 per cent. category.
Continuing that charge for the next 15 months has been slammed by many pressure groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux says:
Clients are finding it increasingly difficult to manage on present levels of benefit. Meeting their basic needs such as food, clothing, water and heating more often than not means that they are unable to meet the 20 per cent. payment in full.
The association added:
Introduction of a 100 per cent. rebate would relieve considerable hardship for many of our clients".

The Child Poverty Action Group says that the 20 per cent. contribution places a considerable financial burden on many households and NACAB adds:
While the sums concerned may appear to be small, they are payable for each adult in the household and come on top of many other rising costs that have to be met from benefit.
Those are scathing remarks from organisations that have to help the poorest in our communities—who are hammered by the 20 per cent. minimum payment which the Government insist on continuing for another year at least.
The Audit Commission argues that it is nonsense to try to collect that payment. It says that 20 per cent. payers
contributed £6 a year net to the public purse in 1990–91…while the average collection cost per charge payer was around £15.
It cost more to collect those 20 per cent. payments than they produced in revenue. The commission's pragmatic arguments for abolishing the system include this:
Exempting 20 per cent. payers would more than pay for itself and would ease the pressure on the system, particularly in areas where collection is very difficult already.
Council rebate and benefit systems are under enormous pressure in trying to process claims and have been forced into chaos. That is the case in my local authority and in many others throughout the country. Many of my constituents have written to say that incorrect bills omitting rebate which are the consequence of that burden on local authorities have resulted in their being summoned to appear before the courts. I know that that is true of charge payers in several other constituencies.
The staff who deal with 20 per cent. rebates could he engaged instead on collecting the poll tax from those who owe the full amount and do not pay it. The Government are preventing councils from effectively collecting those moneys.
As to the benefits clawback and the Government's argument that the poorest should use their benefit payments to meet their 20 per cent. poll tax bills, the Child Poverty Action Group says that it and other organisations query the basis on which the Government calculate compensation,
since benefit rates in April 1988 were set 50p per week lower for each adult than the illustrative benefit levels given in the 1985 White Paper, uprated in line with the Rossi index. Claimants have also been paying additional VAT…The arguments about the exact amount of compensation can get very complex…But the figures"—
that is, those produced by the Government—
take no account of community charge levels higher than average".
Many are higher than the average and the poorest end up losing. The Government do not seem to care. The CPAG adds that the figures take no account either of
the losses that many claimants have suffered in previous years, when the Rossi index, used to uprate means-tested benefits, did not include increases in community charge levels.
The CPAG concludes that the Government accepted that they will not claw back the compensation element in means-tested benefit when the council tax operates, so they have already accepted that the double counting argument is no longer relevant. As the Government have done that in relation to the council tax, they should do so in respect of next year's poll tax, abolish the 20 per cent. payment, and not reduce benefits.
When my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends and I make that argument on the Floor of the House, we are met with stony silence by the Secretary of State and his


Ministers. The Government's nastiness in refusing to abolish the 20 per cent. payment proves that, although the Tories claim to be different since the departure of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), they remain intent on punishing the poor.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) concluded his remarks sooner than I expected.
The continuation of the 20 per cent. poll tax payment is unfair, uneconomical, and unreasonable. The Government do not have a leg to stand on in view of the arguments that they previously deployed as to why it is necessary to maintain the 20 per cent. payment until the introduction of the council tax in April 1983. It is clear that nothing but meanness of mind on the part of the Government prevents them from implementing 100 per cent. rebates from April 1992.
The Government's action is unfair because of the hardship, distress, illness, and other problems that it will cause for many in our communities who cannot afford to make a 20 per cent. contribution. Conservative Members say that that represents only a few pounds a week—but if a person's income is only a few pounds a week, that contribution represents a considerable amount of money to him or her.
I will not rehearse all the problems that people face in trying to make that payment, but I cite the example of a 22-year-old man in my constituency who is unable to obtain full-time work. After he has paid his rent and modest food costs, he is left with £3 a week from which to pay the bus fares—which are expensive in Bristol—that he incurs in attending job interviews, and his community charge contribution. It is beyond belief that such a person should be expected to continue paying poll tax when the Government have accepted in principle that a 100 per cent. rebate ought to be introduced.
The same applies to pensioners. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have experience of pensioners coming to surgeries and experiencing the humiliation of having to say, "This is how much pension I receive a week, and this is how much I spend on gas, electricity, and rent. The two do not balance, and I cannot afford the poll tax."
Often, pensioners cannot afford to pay even for the fuel needed to keep them warm in cold weather. They need constantly to balance their meagre finances—paying one bill this week, and another bill next week. It is cruel of the Government, having accepted the principle of a 100 per cent. rebate, to make people suffer for yet another year. That is the unjust nature of continuing to force a 20 per cent. poll tax payment on the poorest in our communities.
Many people are struggling to meet their poll tax liability. They are the very people at whom the amendment is directed.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but, as she said, I did keep my remarks succinct. My hon. Friend made a good point about high public transport costs in Bristol. Is she aware that in London they account for about one third of the benefit level?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Although transport costs are interesting, they do not come within the amendment.

Mr. Cohen: My point was that claimants must pay their 20 per cent. poll tax contribution out of the benefit that they receive, although a third of their benefit is taken up by transport costs. Is that not deporable?

Ms. Primarolo: It is indeed. It is even crazier that qualification for benefit depends on claimants' ability to prove that they are actively seeking work and attending interviews—which, of course, requires them to travel.
Council after council has clearly demonstrated that it costs more to collect the 20 per cent. minimum contribution than is gained through that contribution. Its abolition would mean a net saving for poll tax payers who are not receiving benefit. Hon. Members have explained that this afternoon, quoting from the Audit Commission report and from what local authorities have said. The 20 per cent. contribution is unfair, forcing people to endure unnecessary suffering; it is also uneconomic and unreasonable, even when judged according to the Government's logic.
The Government's consultation document on the council tax stated clearly that 100 per cent. rebates would be introduced, and we welcome that. The Government also said that they would have to consider adjusting benefit rates when the council tax was introduced because of the "compensation element" given in means-tested benefits in April 1988 and 1989, when claimants were required to make a 20 per cent. contribution.
On 28 November, the Government themselves kicked that stall away by announcing that there would be no clawback when the council tax was introduced. They have now accepted the two main principles involved: first, that the poorest should make no contribution to local government taxation, and, secondly, that there should be no clawback to compensate for the changes made in the social security system.
There is, to put it mildly, a strong case for putting both principles into practice immediately so that they are operational by April 1992. The arguments for reintroducing 100 per cent. rebates have already been well rehearsed, but the Government's arguments for not introducing them in 1992 should also be considered. First, they have claimed that the poll tax—the community charge—is different from the council tax; secondly, they have said that benefit levels for 1992–93 have already been set and that change is therefore impossible.
In Committee, the Minister said:
In 1993, we shall move to a new system that is based on property. Until then, the system of taxation will be based on people. We increased people's social security benefits so that they could contribute to the personal tax".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 December 1991; c. 963.]
According to the Government's own description, however, the council tax is only partly a property tax; it is also a personal tax. The single-person discounts are an obvious example of the way in which the personal element is retained.
The Government have said that there will be no clawback of the minimum contribution. They have kicked away that stall quite nicely, too. It has been difficult to sustain the argument that the community charge is a charge for services in practice. The Government's own statements comparing the distributional impact of the poll


tax with that of the council tax lend weight to the view that the poll tax is just another form of local government taxation.
Finally, the Government imposed the requirement for a 20 per cent. minimum contribution to domestic rates before the poll tax was introduced. Their argument that the 20 per cent. payment cannot be abolished because of the personal-taxation element is a load of rubbish. Although the council tax is both personal and property-based, the Government are providing 100 per cent. rebates, and in any case the 20 per cent. contribution was orginally introduced under a property-based system.
Yet again the Government have trimmed their arguments to suit whatever they choose to do at any time. Perhaps we all do that to some extent, but this is an important issue: we are discussing whether the poorest and most vulnerable members of society should make a 20 per cent. contribution. The Government have admitted that there is no reason for that contribution to be made any longer, and have said that it will not be made after 1993. Why, then, do they not abolish it from 1 April 1992?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I deliberately waited until what seemed to be the very end of the hon. Lady's speech before intervening; after all, she did say "Finally" a few moments ago.
At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) taunted me: indeed, he invoked the Almighty's attention to my cotton socks, so annoyed was he by the fact that, in Committee, I had asked the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) why he wanted to abolish the 20 per cent. rule. I have not yet received a full reply to that question.
One point has not been raised either today or in Committee. Opposition Members seem blindly to assume that abolishing the 20 per cent. rule would cost local authorities nothing. That is not true. Has it occurred to the hon. Lady that local authorities would still incur a cost in working out who should be exempted? She cannot duck that part of the equation. We have heard only a partial argument today, as we did in Committee.

Ms. Primarolo: I wish that I had more time. I can say "Touche" to the Minister, for we have already made that very point to him. We asked whether local authorities would be burdened with costs when trying to calculate who would be entitled to the 25 per cent. single-household discount under the new system, and suggested that without a register it would be difficult for local authorities to establish who was receiving income support. In Committee, Ministers continually told us that there would be no problem: council tenants, even if they were not receiving 100 per cent. rebates, would receive housing benefit and income support.
The Government have now decided not to claw back the compensation element in means-tested benefits—[ Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one debate can take place at a time, and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) has the Floor.

Ms. Primarolo: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The 100 per cent. rebates will be very welcome, but they will not be introduced until 1993. We should like them to be introduced in 1992. On the Government's own

admission, abolishing the 20 per cent. minimum contribution is logical. The Government have accepted that claimants should continue to receive compensation, as well as ceasing to pay the 20 per cent. contribution.
The conclusion is simple. The Audit Commission's pragmatic arguments for the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution have always been convincing. According to "The Administration of the Community Charge: Some Longer-term Considerations", published in 1991, the Audit Commission said:
exempting 20 per cent. payers would more than pay for itself and would ease the pressure on the system, particularly in areas where collection is very difficult anyway.
That answers the Minister's point. The Audit Commission is supposed to be expert in knowing what local authorities can or cannot do.
I hope that even at this late stage the Government will realise that they are being unfair, unjust, unreasonable and illogical and that they will therefore vote for the amendment so that 100 per cent. rebates can be introduced for those on benefit from 1 April 1992.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I wish to refer to the position in my area, which will not have escaped the Minister's notice. He is aware that I am deeply concerned about those in Rotherham who will have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax next year and who will have to pay 20 per cent. of that part of the successor tax that relates to property when the new system is introduced. While the Government determine the level of poll tax, in so far as they determine the standard spending assessment, those areas that receive an unfair and excessively low standard spending assessment will find that they have to continue to raise a much larger figure, even from the poorest who pay 20 per cent., than should be the case.
Three years ago, the Department of the Environment could not include employment as a factor in determining standard spending assessments, or refer to the tourist character of an area in determining SSAs, but now it has given way and allowed contributions to be made and support to be given to tourist areas. However, it has not allowed unemployment to he taken into account in areas such as mine. That inevitably means that those who live in poor areas or in areas with high unemployment will find that the poorest in the community, even though they have to contribute only 20 per cent., will inevitably have to pay, proportionately, a great deal more.
The Minister and others believe that people ought to pay 20 per cent., but I notice that their belief does not extend to Wandsworth, where no one has to pay anything. The residents of Wandsworth paid nothing last year and they will pay nothing next year. I suspect that, if the Government remain in office, the people of Wandsworth will not even have to pay anything the year after that. However, it does not seem to have dawned on Ministers that they may not be providing a fair level of SSAs to areas that refrain from levying a poll tax and that then receive the benefit of not having to incur administrative costs of at least £2 million.
The request that the 20 per cent. relief should be changed so that the poor receive 100 per cent. benefit should be extended to the rest of the country and not concentrated merely on the borough of Wandsworth. I take a dim view of the unfairness that is inherent in the methods of grant determination, an unfairness that inevitably will continue. The Government have been told during the last two or three years of the inherent unfairness


of the system. Until that unfairness is dealt with, it is wrong for the Government to impose burdens on the poorest and for the poorest to continue to experience higher burdens of taxation simply because they live in poorer areas.
While the Government continue to classify poor areas as rich, needy areas as affluent and necessitous areas as salubrious, the system will remain grossly unfair. If the Minister looks again at the figures for my constituency, he will have to confess that they are grossly unfair. While that unfairness exists, I object to my constituents having to pay an unfair burden of poll tax. That is particularly acute when it comes to the neediest in the community.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) raised topics that were not raised by any other speaker. We do not take account of unemployment when establishing the standard spending assessment. However, we do take account of social factors. If unemployment continues apace for a period, it is reasonable to assume that its effects will be reflected in social factors. It is precisely the measurement of social factors that gives a higher standard spending assessment to Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Hackney and to a lesser extent to Wandsworth than to Rotherham. The hon. Gentleman must not say that social factors are not taken into account. They are. It is precisely that which leads to the higher settlements for the places that I mentioned.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) opened the debate by speaking softly and gently. He urged me to reply in the same tone. I am not entirely sure that I shall be able to do so. There were elements in his speech that excited me somewhat. In particular, I found a deep contrast between the hon. Gentleman's approach and that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Perhaps unusually, I found a certain amount of good sense creeping into the argument on the Liberal Benches. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire appears to recognise that the proposal would have a cost. He asked me, very reasonably, what that cost would be. I shall answer his question.
The hon. Member for Brightside seemed, for most of his speech, to assume that the proposal would cost nothing. It was an extraordinary approach, particularly when one recollects that his, hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) accused the Government of having wasted £14 billion on the community charge—not a figure with which I agree. Money has been spent, but that money has not been wasted. It has been provided for the community charge reduction scheme—to reduce the community charge by £140. That money has gone into benefits and has been used to help people to afford to pay their community charge in one way or another.
Although the hon. Member for Cathcart plucks the figure from the air, if he recognises that all these measures are designed to help people to pay the community charge and that they have a cost which has to be found from the central taxpayer, it follows as night follows day that the Opposition's proposal would also involve a substantial cost.

Mr. Maxton: rose——

Mr. Portillo: After I have given way to the hon. Member for Cathcart, I shall tell the House what that cost is.

Mr. Maxton: If the Minister is so concerned about ensuring that people can pay the poll tax, he should accept the amendment. That would be the best way of ensuring that the very poorest get out of the poll tax net altogether. I gather that, as the Minister had £4 billion to provide the £140 discount, all he would have had to do was to make a reduction of £126 and use the other £14 to abolish the 20 per cent. rule, not from 1 April next year but from 1 April of this financial year.

Mr. Portillo: We shall come to the figures in a moment, when the hon. Gentleman will be "illuminated".
I thank the hon. Member for Brightside, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and others, including the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who applauded what the Government are to do when the council tax is introduced, which is to provide 100 per cent. rebates. I confirm that there will be no clawback of the amounts that were put into the social security benefits. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was absolutely right to say that the implied cost—£680 million—is not insignificant. It means that the benefits will be £680 million higher than they would otherwise have been had they been increased simply in line with inflation since 1989. Whether it is expressed in terms of the burden that it imposes on income tax, corporation tax, value added tax or in any other way that one chooses to express it, £680 million is, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, not an insignificant amount.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) did not deal with what concerns the Government—our priorities, what can be afforded and what it is right to do. She seemed to be engaged in a debating society debate about whether giving up contributions to local taxation from April 1993 meant that the Government had no logical basis on which to sustain them during 1992–93.
In a personal tax—the community charge—based on the principle that everyone should pay something, it is appropriate that those payments should continue to be made. I say that not merely as a matter of dogma but as a reflection of many expectations outside the House. Moneys have been put into people's benefits. Those moneys have been raised by taxpayers. They are the rich and those on low incomes—the spectrum of people in this country.
People have a right to expect that the moneys that have been provided to meet the 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge should be used for that purpose, that that policy is sustained and that local authorities should make every effort to collect the contributions.

Mr. Bryan Gould: The Minister tried to peddle that argument in Committee. It was unconvincing then, and it is unconvincing now. If the basis of the 20 per cent. contribution is that it is a necessary corollary of a personal tax, and as we have it on the authority—often repeated—of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—that the council tax is 50 per cent. a personal tax, logically, there should be a 10 per cent. contribution under the council tax. That is manifestly not the case. What has happened to the Minister's principle?

Mr. Portillo: I wish to express the thanks of the House to the hon. Gentleman for appearing near the end of the debate——

Mr. Gould: rose——

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is very sensitive, but I shall give way.

Mr. Gould: I think that everyone present believes that the Minister's remark was a particularly cheap shot. I was out of the Chamber for only a brief period and, unlike the Secretary of State, I have religiously sat through all the debates today and yesterday.

Mr. Portillo: As ever, the hon. Gentleman's sensitivity leads me to believe that I must have been closer to the target than I suspected. The hon. Member signs up as a member of the Bristol, South debating society. I am not saying that it is impossible to abolish the 20 per cent. contribution; this is a tax under which a contribution is expected from everyone and under which those moneys have been made available. The problem of non-payment has been made much worse by the activities of some Opposition Members to whom I shall come in due course.
The amounts which have been put into benefit, as presently uprated, are £1·31 for single people under 25, £1·48 for single people over 25 and £2·62 for couples, yet the 20 per cent. contribution averages about 80p a week for single people and £1·60 a week for couples. We do not know what the charges will be next year—I hope that they will be not much higher. The benefit rates will rise to £1·40 for single people under 25, £1·58 for single people over 25 and £2·80 for couples. The House can see that the amounts that are available under income support are well above those that people are asked to pay.

Mr. Blunkett: I shall not delay the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he will tell the House from where he has extracted those figures. Earlier this afternoon, I quoted an answer by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security—the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—at column 446 of the Official Report of 27 March, which suggested that those figures could not be extrapolated from the benefit levels and that they had never been included as a specific amount.

Mr. Portillo: As the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience, the theology of social security is that social security benefits cannot be broken down into amounts for particular purposes. None the less, a specific amount was added when the upratings were first made. I have uprated the amounts for the years since then.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire wanted to know the costs of implementing the measure. One must remember that we would have to pay 100 per cent. rebates to those on income support and, to avoid a cliff edge, have a sliding scale for those who were above the income support level but on low incomes. The total cost of increasing benefits not only to those on income support but to those further up the income scale would he £440 million this year and £500 million in 1992–93.

Mr. Kirkwood: Are those English and Welsh figures, or are they national figures including the Scottish figure? Perhaps the Minister would like to write to me about that matter.

Mr. Portillo: I believe that they are Great Britain figures. It is a considerable sum.
Much has been made of the Audit Commission's figures. I tried to deal with them to the satisfaction of the House. The Audit Commission was looking at 1990–91. In that year, £71 was the average amount that the people paying 20 per cent. were asked to pay. The Audit Commission compared the £71 that those people were asked to pay and the amount that had been added to income support, which, on average, was £6 below the £71. That seems to be a wholly spurious comparison and is not of any interest. If one were to relieve people of the 20 per cent. contribution, one would have to increase the benefit levels, and I have outlined the cost of doing that.
In any case, I do not agree with the Audit Commission's collection figure, which it puts at £15 but which I put at £12·50, on average. Taking 1990–91, when the average contribution was £71, the net revenue that was collectable after deduction of costs was about £60.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) made a good point when discussing the costs of collection. The good sense which he talked was met by an intake of breath among the Opposition. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—made a good point, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), when he said that the cost of administration did not go away when 100 per cent. benefit was paid to people. One must still assess them and provide them with the benefit, so there is still a lot of administration. The Labour party has managed to avoid that point throughout the debate.
It was breathtaking that the Labour party has talked about all the difficulties of non-payment and collection. The Labour party has shown extraordinary irresponsibility in concluding that the only response if a tax is difficult to collect is to abolish it or, if it is difficult to collect from a portion of the population, to let those people off.
There was something even more breathtaking than that. We sat here yesterday and listened to Labour Members attack the Scottish National party for advocating non-payment. History is now to be rewritten—as though by a group of Soviet historians—to remove from the history books the contribution of Labour Members who advocated, and set the example of, non-payment.
I should like to put on record the names of those Labour Members who signed the statement that advocated non-payment. The hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)——

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Portillo: —the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), for Tottenham (Mr. Grant)——

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is incumbent on the Minister as a matter of order to read the statement to the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is up to the Minister whether or not he reads it. It is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Portillo: I was just about to come to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who signed the statement, so he will be able to read it out himself. Other hon. Members who signed were the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and Mr. Eric Heifer, the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—he is now in his place—for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), for Leyton, for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and Mr. Pat Wall, the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo)—also in her place—for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).

6 pm

That is not all—three Scottish Labour Members of Parliament declared that they would not pay the community charge when they launched the Committee of 100 to campaign against the community charge in Scotland. They were the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun yesterday said, extraordinarily, that he had not paid himself but that he had not urged anyone else not to pay. Do the Opposition know nothing about the example that legislators set? Do they know nothing about the effect that people who are sent to Westminster to make laws may have on their constituents if they say that they will not pay taxes that have been passed in the House?

We have seen an extraordinary display from the Opposition today. They want to forget their past. They say that the 20 per cent. contribution should be abolished because it is difficult to collect. They want to forget that they made it difficult to collect the 20 per cent. contributions because they urged people not to pay the tax, did not pay it themselves and set a terrible example. It is not for that reason that I ask the House to reject the amendment, but for the arguments that I have outlined. When hon. Members vote tonight they will bear in mind the heavy guilt felt by the Opposition.

Mr. Maxton: I have heard the Second Reading speeches from members of the Government Front Bench and I have sat through the Committee stage waiting to hear one Minister or one Conservative hon. Member say that they were wrong about the poll tax. I have waited for them to show some humility for having imposed the tax on the people of Scotland and then on the people of England and Wales and to apologise for the fact that they got it dramatically wrong. But what do we get? We have heard yet another arrogant speech from the Minister of State in which he tried to justify the unjustifiable.
Having listened carefully to the Minister and to all the Conservative hon. Members who have spoken, I do not understand why they are getting rid of the poll tax. All of them argued in favour of its retention. That is what they have been doing, so why on earth will the hon. Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—who is not here—and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) vote for the Third Reading of a Bill to abolish the poll tax? The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross may not be aware that clause 100 is entitled "Abolition of community charges". He will vote for the Bill tonight despite the speech that he made earlier.
It is clear that the Government are getting rid of the poll tax not because they no longer believe in it, but because they know that it is an electoral disaster which will bring them down. It will remain an electoral disaster until the general election. It is returning to prominence and the Government will suffer as a result.
If the Government are not prepared to accept any of the sound practical and principled reasons given by the Liberal Democrats and by Labour——

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: rose——

Mr. Maxton: Let me finish this point. If they are not prepared to accept our arguments, I shall offer the electoral argument. Their electoral chances will improve if they can show that they are doing something about the poll tax before the election. The one thing that they can do about the poll tax before the election is to abolish the 20 per cent. minimum payment on 1 April 1992 instead of leaving it until 1993. That is the one thing that they can do to improve their electoral chances, but they are not prepared to do it.
The truth is that the Government want to hang on to every last vestige of the poll tax for as long as possible. Tonight and during all the debates on the 20 per cent. minimum payment and on the council tax we have witnessed the struggle in the Tory party between those who want to get rid of the poll tax completely and those who want to keep it. As a result, the Government have come up with a half-baked compromise which satisfies neither element and which will create almost as big a chaotic mess as the poll tax did.
The Minister said that the principle behind the 20 per cent. payment was that everyone should pay something. However, the 20 per cent. minimum payment was first introduced not for the poll tax but for the old rating system. When it was introduced the Bill covering England and Wales had not yet been introduced into the House. Therefore, we can assume only that its introduction on 1 April 1988 was a wholly cynical way of trying to show that the numbers who would benefit from the introduction of the poll tax would be greater than would otherwise have been the case.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), looks rather puzzled, so I shall explain. The Government introduced the minimum payment under the rating system on 1 April 1988. All single people had to pay 20 per cent. of the rates which for, say, a council in Castlemilk in my constituency were about £450; so a single person would have had to pay £90 a year. That would have applied to any single person—to a widow, a pensioner or a single parent. From 1 April 1989 when the poll tax was introduced that person had to


pay only £50 instead of the £90. Suddenly, the Government could claim that such people were beneficiaries under the poll tax. It was a wholly cynical exercise in statistical manoeuvring to justify the system.
I cannot use the word that I want to describe the arguments that I have heard from Conservative hon. Members but it is blatantly obvious——

Mr. Blunkett: Skulduggery.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend suggests "skulduggery"—I am not sure whether that is a parliamentary term but it is good enough. The Government imposed the poll tax which meant that the poorest people just outside the rebate system paid exactly the same as a millionaire and that everyone paid a minimum amount. -They now intend to retain the 20 per cent., but they are happy about the fact that the Bill will give a 25 per cent. discount to every single person, whatever his income. They are happy to ensure that the maximum amount paid by the wealthiest person will be only three times that paid by those just outside the rebate system, but they are not prepared to get rid of a 20 per cent. minimum payment for the poorest in society.
I am sure that most people welcomed the £140 a year reduction because everyone welcomes a cut in taxes. but, as I suggested to the Minister, if instead of giving that reduction they had given only £126 a year, the remaining £14—or 10 per cent.—could have been used to get rid of the 20 per cent. minimum payment not on 1 April 1992, as is now suggested, but on 1 April 1991. That would have been the sensible and humane thing to do. The 20 per cent. payment was unfair from the beginning and it should never have been imposed. The Government now have an opportunity to get rid of it if only they would act with some humanity for once.
It is an impractical tax. Above all else, that has brought it into disrepute. The tax has brought the whole system into disrepute because the level of non-payment has not been due to the non-payment campaigns of Labour Members or of the SNP, but to the fact that the vast majority of people to whom the 20 per cent. applied simply could not afford to pay it.
The note that I have just received from the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), does not say, "Sit down." It says, "Merry Christmas and a happy new year. Will you join me for a drink which I am prepared to pay for?" Anyone who believes that will believe anything.
The system is unworkable. The vast majority of those who have not paid the tax are those on rebates and especially those who are on the 20 per cent. minimum payment. Some 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of those who have not paid the tax in Scotland are either on the minimum 20 per cent. payment or are on rebates. The non-payment campaign is not the cause. I opposed the principle of the campaign. which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) enunciated last night. I also believe that it has always been a dangerous diversion away from the truth about the 20 per cent. minimum payment and non-payment, which is that people simply could not afford to pay. It has given Conservative Members the constant excuse to attack the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), the SNP and some of my hon. Friends. The poll tax remained in place for six months longer than it should have simply

because the Government were able to attack those people and had an excuse for keeping the poll tax on the statute book. It would otherwise have collapsed and gone.
In Scotland, local authorities have now issued 3 million summonses for poll tax debt. The vast majority of them have been issued against the very poorest in our society. It is in itself an obscenity that we are hitting the widows, the single parents and the old-age pensioners. To tax such people makes the tax uncollectable and a waste of time.
Conservative Members suggest that local authorities could get the money deducted directly from income support. In the vast majority of cases in which that has been tried the social security departments have turned down the application because most people who have not paid already have deductions, which means that nothing more can be deducted. How do the local authorities get the tax?
I remember that during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill I said that we should finish up with warehouses full of Walkman radios which had belonged to youngsters who could not afford to pay the tax. That is what we are coming to. It is not a matter of whether local authorities try to collect the tax. The fact is that one cannot get money from people who do not have it. Local authorities have to try to get the money through the warrant sale and poinding procedure. To try to do that for 3 million people is impossible. We do not have the sheriff officers to do so and——

Mr. Bill Walker: It would be helpful for the hon. Gentleman to tell the House what the adult population of Scotland is today.

Mr. Maxton: I know the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he deny that there are 3 million warrants? I do not deny that some people have received more than one warrant for debt because the tax has been in existence for three years. The point is that the warrants have to be collected individually. If someone settles a warrant for 1989–90, he may still have a warrant outstanding for 1990–91 and another outstanding for 1991–92. That does not negate my argument that 3 million warrants are outstanding.
It is impossible to collect debts from people who do not have the money to pay and who have few goods which, under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, can be taken from them. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross will know that the Debtors (Scotland) Act, which should have abolished warrant sales altogether, went only halfway down that road. It took out of the warrant sale procedure many domestic goods. As a result, there are few things, especially in a poor household, which the sheriff officers can poind and take away for sale. That is why I used the example of the Walkman. Often it is the only thing a young unemployed man or woman has which a sheriff officer could collect. What would one get for a second-hand Walkman? A fiver or £10 does not pay off the debt and is far less than the cost of trying to collect the money.
The Government are desperately trying to cling to the last remnants of the poll tax and especially to the one part of the tax which, above all, has been unfair and has made it unworkable—the 20 per cent. minimum payment. The Government have now deserted the principle that everyone should pay something towards local government


finance. If they had any humanity left, they would get rid of the tax now. They would accept our amendment or at least admit the principle of it and then table amendments in the other place. Unfortunately, they do not have the humility or the guts to do that. They do not have the guts to stand by their principles, as is shown by the 20 per cent. minimum payment, nor do they have the guts to get rid of that payment on 1 April 1992. The whole problem is—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should know that I make my speeches in my own way without instructions from anybody.
The Government could have got rid of the poll tax itself on 1 April 1992 if they had taken our advice. That would have been the humane thing to do. Now they have an opportunity at least to get rid of the most obnoxious part—the 20 per cent. minimum payment—on 1 April 1992. If Ministers cannot bring themselves to do that, Conservative Members who urged the Government to get rid of the poll tax should join me and my hon. Friends in the Lobby to vote for the amendment, which aims to get rid of the 20 per cent. minimum payment now.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 320.

Division No. 29]
[6.18 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Corbett, Robin


Allen, Graham
Corbyn, Jeremy


Alton, David
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Tom


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Crowther, Stan


Armstrong, Hilary
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Beith, A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bellotti, David
Dixon, Don


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Douglas, Dick


Benton, Joseph
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Blair, Tony
Eadie, Alexander


Blunkett, David
Eastham, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Boyes, Roland
Enright, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Faulds, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fraser, John


Carr, Michael
Fyfe, Maria


Cartwright, John
Galbraith, Sam


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clelland, David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
George, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Golding, Mrs Llin





Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gould, Bryan
Mowlam, Marjorie


Graham, Thomas
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Nellist, Dave


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hardy, Peter
O'Brien, William


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Hara, Edward


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Neill, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hayward, Robert
Parry, Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Patchett, Terry


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pendry, Tom


Henderson, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Radice, Giles


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Randall, Stuart


Howells, Geraint
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hoyle, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Illsley, Eric
Rogers, Allan


Ingram, Adam
Rooker, Jeff


Janner, Greville
Rooney, Terence


Johnston, Sir Russell
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lambie, David
Short, Clare


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive


Livsey, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steinberg, Gerry


McAllion, John
Stott, Roger


McAvoy, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


Macdonald, Calum A.
Straw, Jack


McFall, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Maclennan, Robert
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McMaster, Gordon
Turner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Vaz, Keith


McWilliam, John
Wallace, James


Madden, Max
Walley, Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N.


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Martlew, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Meale, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wray, Jimmy


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Ayes


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Martyn Jones and


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Allason, Rupert


Aitken, Jonathan
Amess, David


Alexander, Richard
Amos, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, James






Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Ashby, David
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Fishburn, John Dudley


Atkins, Robert
Fookes, Dame Janet


Atkinson, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forth, Eric


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gardiner, Sir George


Benyon, W.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butler, Chris
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chope, Christopher
Hill, James


Churchill, Mr
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irvine, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irving, Sir Charles


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Janman, Tim


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James


Eggar, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Emery, Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evennett, David
Knapman, Roger


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Farr, Sir John
Knowles, Michael


Favell, Tony
Knox, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lang, Rt Hon Ian





Latham, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rost, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rowe, Andrew


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shelton, Sir William


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maples, John
Squire, Robin


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, Sir John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Summerson, Hugo


Miller, Sir Hal
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thorne, Neil


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Malcolm


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trippier, David


Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Walters, Sir Dennis


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Paice, James
Watts, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wheeler, Sir John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Redwood, John
Yeo, Tim


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Sir Robert



Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tellers for the Noes:


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Mr. David Lightbown and


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly navigated

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising at this point. I wonder if you can help me. I am in a new and slightly strange position of not being privy to all the discussions which take place in the Labour party regarding its attitude on matters relating to the important Bill which is before the House on Report. As you will know, Mr. Speaker makes a provisional selection of amendments, which he puts before the House in a certain order. Some are selected, some are not. An order of those selected for debate is given. Clearly the debate is not open-ended. We are guillotined and there is no opportunity to debate all the topics that hon. Members would wish to debate.
I have tabled some amendments, which have been selected in a group comprising amendments Nos. 57, 122, 85, 68, 69, 107, 124 and 108, which seem to be the only amendments to deal with enforcement procedures such as the use of bailiffs, poindings and imprisonment. Given that the selection is provisional, do you, as the current occupant of the Chair, have any opportunity to rearrange Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments to ensure that between now and 8 o'clock we shall at least have a few minutes to debate enforcement procedures and my desire to oppose the current poll tax enforcement procedures being put lock, stock and barrel into the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Member's dilemma, but the selection was made yesterday and there is no way in which it can now be changed.

Clause 2

LIABILITY TO TAX DEIERMINED ON A DAILY BASIS

Mr. Gould: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'dwelling' to end of line 4.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 113, in page 7, line 10, to leave out clause 11.

No. 64, in clause 11, page 7, line 10, leave out 'amount of council tax payable' and insert 'billing authority shall calculate'.

No. 65, in clause 11, page 7, line 11, leave out 'shall be subject to'.

No. 70, in clause 11, page 7, line 11, leave out 'discount' and insert 'personal surcharge'.

No. 71, in clause 11, page 7, line 14, leave out 'discount' and insert 'personal surcharge'.

No. 17, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, at end insert 'or;
(c) there are two or more residents of the dwelling one of whom is a disabled person and one is his live-in carer who does not fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount.'.

No. 114, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, at end insert 'or;
(c) there are two residents who are married to each other or living together as husband and wife and they live with one or more residents each of whom falls to be disregarded under paragraph (2) or paragraph (9) of Schedule 1.'.

No. 66, in clause 11, page 7, line 17, leave out
'amount of council tax payable'
and insert 'billing authority shall calculate'.

No. 67, in clause 11, page 7, line 18, leave out 'shall be subject to'.

No. 72, in clause 11, page 7, line 19, leave out 'discount' and insert 'personal surcharge'.

No. 73, in clause 11, page 7, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert
'there are at least two residents of the dwelling who do not fall to be disregarded for the purpose of the surcharge.'.

No. 7, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out '25' and insert '40'.

No. 9, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out '25 per cent', and insert '50 per cent.'.

No. 74, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out '25' and insert '50'.

No. 8, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out from '25 per cent.' to end of line 27.

No. 75, in clause 11, page 7, line 32, leave out 'discount' and insert 'personal surcharge'.

No. 81, in clause 33, page 23, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—

'R-P-PT/T'.

No. 82, in clause 33, page 23, line 18, at end insert—
'PT is the aggregate of the amounts the authority estimates will be payable for the year in respect of the personal surcharge as determined under sections 11 and 12;'.

No. 83, in clause 44, page 31, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—

'R - P - PT/T.

No. 84, in clause 44, page 31, line 8, at end insert—
'PT is the aggregate of the amounts the authority estimates will be payable for the year in respect of the personal surcharge as determined under sections 11 and 12;'.

No. 18, in clause 79, page 51, line 45, at end insert '; or
(c) there are two or more residents of the dwelling one of whom is a disabled person and one is his live-in carer who does not fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount.'.

No. 14, in clause 79, page 52, line 1, leave out '25' and insert '40'.

Mr. Gould: In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), constantly assured us that the council tax was a combined tax. He preferred to describe it as a combined property and personal tax. He was not quite so keen when it was described as a combined head and roof tax, although I think that he eventually accepted that that is a perfectly accurate way to describe it. He certainly conceded that the council tax combined those two very different elements in such a way as to combine the difficulties which attend both.
In Committee and on Report I think that we have established that there are real problems with the property tax element. There are problems with regional banding, with the compression of the band and consequent unfairness and with the mechanisms for carrying out valuations—what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) described as a "Mickey-Mouse valuation". That could just about have been tolerated if Ministers had been prepared to acknowledge that it was necessary to move to a straightforward property tax to get rid of the poll tax. Unfortunately, they were not prepared to do so. As a consequence we are saddled with this hybrid monster—part personal tax, part property tax, or part roof tax, part head tax, as I prefer to describe it.
Clause 11 introduces the notion of personal discount, which is the means by which the personal element is given


effect. That element or discount has rightly attracted a great deal of criticism and attention from organisations outside the House. When and if the Government implement the tax, they can certainly not claim that they were never warned. They have been warned by me and my hon. Friends, but in case they were inclined to set those warnings aside, they have also been warned by all the local authority associations, by the Audit Commission, by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and by many journals of opinion in the world of local government. In the estimates of most objective observers the Government are running real risks in the implementation of the new tax by adding an uncomfortable and difficult-to-operate element of personal tax.
The oddity is that we have yet to hear a convincing argument from Ministers as to why that element is there. Ministers are clear about one thing—although other people are less clear—that the discount system is not there to deal with the problem of people who cannot afford to pay the council tax.
I give the hon. Member for Eastwood credit for the fact that he is clear that the discount has nothing to do with the ability to pay. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is looking as blank and astonished as he did in Committee, when I made the same argument. He is going to rise to step into exactly the same trap.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am not looking blank. If we are worried about a person's ability to pay, that is where the rebates come in.

Mr. Gould: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has at least gleaned that from his long hours spent in Committee, because that is not true of all his hon. Friends. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—although I concede he was an assiduous attender in Committee—is not present. He seemed a good deal less clear than the hon. Member for Nottingham, South has revealed himself to be.
I absolve the Minister from all confusion. He always said that the basis for the discount was nothing to do with ability to pay. I agree that it certainly cannot be justified on that basis because, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, the only way in which we can deal with ability to pay is through the rebate scheme. That is what it is intended to do.
The discount scheme has nothing to do with benefits. As we have frequently pointed out, a millionaire—that figure of our demonology, as the Minister would have it—who lives alone will get a substantial discount whereas a low-income family with four children will not. It is clear that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South is right—discounts have nothing to do with the ability to pay. I hope that when the hon. Member for Battersea eventually arrives he will point that out to him, because he will recall that in Committee the hon. Member for Battersea insisted that a single mother with children should have her ability to pay taken into account and concluded:
The discount system does that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 November 1991; c. 355.]
It is perfectly true that he subsequently denied that he said any such thing, but the Hansard record is against him.
So whatever else may be said for the discount system, it has nothing to do with fairness or ability to pay. Indeed, it has that familiar characteristic of so much Government legislation in this sphere, that the better off one is the more benefit one derives from the discount. Someone living

alone in a £29,000 house in Wales, for example, would get a discount worth £27·25 a year, or 52p a week. Someone living in a £330,000 house in London would receive a discount of nearly eight times that amount, £200 or £3·85 a week. It is all too characteristic of the poll tax and everything that has flowed from it.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office, then attempted to make the argument that the basis of the discount was that a single-person household made fewer demands on local government services than a two-person household. As soon as we examined that argument—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was particularly severe on it—it became clear that no such inviolate rule could be established. There were many instances of single people making substantial demands—perhaps a single parent with a large number of children—whereas a pensioner couple might make few demands. So there was no basis on that score to be identified for supporting the discount scheme.
Even if there were something to be said for the argument, why stop at the distinction between one and two-person households? Why not carry the argument through to three, four, five and six-person households? The Minister was alert to the problems into which that line of argument might draw him. His basis for the argument was clearly his touching, but rather primitive, view that, somehow, all relationships must be based on contracts—that there was a sort of market element to all tax relationships between the community and the individual and that unless the individual had somehow bargained for a given level of services, the tax could not be valid.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman referred to three, four and five-person households. I have been trying to work out the implications of amendment No. 70, by which he would impose a personal surcharge. Is that his plan and does the Labour party now propose a personal surcharge on the third, fourth and fifth person in a household?

Mr. Gould: I am delighted to learn that the hon. Gentleman attaches such literal importance to all amendments that appear on the paper. As an experienced parliamentarian, he must know that the purpose of amendments is often to reveal inconsistencies in proposals and the inconsistency in that case is well revealed.
The next argument to be advanced was that the council tax remained to some degree a personal tax—that it was a combination, as we heard earlier, of a property and personal tax—so it was right that that element of head tax should differentiate between a one and two-person household. Again, that left unanswered the question why that logic was not carried through; that if the old principle of the poll tax was retained in the new tax, why was not that element of personal tax also paid by the third, fourth, fifth and sixth member of the household? When confronted by that argument, the Minister rapidly abandoned that line of reasoning.
6.45 pm
The real, convincing explanation for this monster dare not be articulated by Ministers. It is that whereas the Secretary of State—I pay tribute to him in that he was one of the few clear-eyed Members prepared to say, "We must drive through legislation to abolish the hated poll tax"—finally persuaded his reluctant, or seemingly reluctant, hon. Friends that that step was necessary, even his courage


failed him at that point. He was assured, no doubt not least by his Minister of State, that it would be virtually impossible to get such legislation through without making major concessions to those battalions who had fought so long and hard in the cause of the poll tax. They would not depart the field without a battle, he was told. They had to have their victory and trophies to take home. He was also told that while it was clear that all those supporters who would die in the last ditch for the poll tax would certainly fight for it—even if they were forced to abandon the poll tax—the last thing they would do would be to vote for a property tax, or something which looked astonishingly like the much reviled rates.
How was the trick to be achieved? It was achieved by incorporating into the sensible proposition and basic idea of a property tax the notion of a head tax. The discount idea came from that. But the oddity is that having screwed up their courage—and screwed up their proposal as a consequence of doing so—the Government discovered that the sacrifice had been made in vain. After all, where were those great battalions of supporters for the poll tax? Did they stay to fight the battle? No, not even the Minister of State stayed to fight. He now tries to escape the problem by saying that he supports the poll tax as he supports its abolition. As a grammatical construction, it may be a good sentence, but as a logical proposition it has deficiencies.

Mr. Peter Fry: The hon. Gentleman talks about a logical proposition. Will he explain why amendment No. 110 would do away totally with the discount, whereas amendment No. 74 would have a discount or rebate of 50 per cent.? Is Labour policy to have no discount or one of 50 per cent.?

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman labours under the difficulty of not having heard any of the arguments in Committee and probably of not having heard any of the other arguments on the subject, so his state of ignorance is understandable. There is no question but that we are opposed to discounts and that we believe this to be an unacceptable element of head tax. I appreciate why the hon. Gentleman tried a time-honoured diversionary tactic when things were getting uncomfortable.
The importation of this remnant of the poll tax is unnecessary because virtually no Conservative Member will vote against the Bill. Government supporters will troop into the Lobby in support of a measure to abolish the poll tax—[Interruptionl] Perhaps one or two will not. I pay tribute to their sense of principle. Those who swore undying allegiance to the poll tax and to their right hon. Friend who forced it through have all melted away. That may be a kind expression for what they have done. They have skulked or slunk away, so the whole sacrifice was unnecessary. It may have been unnecessary, but it has left the council tax in a hopeless mess of confusion and it is worth considering some of the consequences of that confusion.
The single person discount will apply not to a handful of properties, but, potentially at any rate, to 7 million households—33 per cent. of the total. In some London boroughs as many as 50 per cent. of households are single-person households. That is what the Audit Commission discovered and why it is worried sick about the proposal. Not only must the 50 per cent. of households in some London boroughs that are single-person households be identified and sent separate bills and so on,

but those are the very people found by the Audit Commission to move frequently; 50 to 60 per cent. of some registers in inner London change over the course of a year.
So the problem of first identifying and then tracking, tracing and billing all those people on a differential basis is already horrific. That is why the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has issued a grave warning—I apologise for using again the example which that body provided, but it is so striking that it bears repeating—saying:
A CAB in Greater Manchester reports a client who had six changes of income status and three moves of address (all in different local authorities) in ten months. For three months the client was a full time student living in local authority A paying 20 per cent. of the community charge. Then the client moved to local authority B, had a part-time job and claimed community charge benefit (CCB). Then she claimed income support and was once again paying 20 per cent. of the community charge. Following this she had two months on a fluctuating income…and in receipt of CCB. This was followed by a return to her parental home in local authority C where she claimed income support and was responsible for 20 per cent. community charge…She then returned to local authority A to become a full time post-graduate student and became liable to 20 per cent. of community charge".
That is not a particularly unusual case, but it illustrates the enormous problems with which local authorities will be faced in trying to decide the appropriate bill to be applied to a given person on a given date.
In addition to the 7 million households, bills must be sent to the owners of empty properties, who will be charged 50 per cent. of the total bill, so that two discounts will be available. Status discounts will also affect the picture. Those will apply to households in which one of the inhabitants is a student or someone who suffers from an illness such as Alzheimer's disease and is therefore exempt under schedule 1. Notwithstanding that huge number of households and all the changes in address, we must also bear in mind the fact that people's status might change from day to day. A person who lives in a flat with a student and pays only 75 per cent. of the bill will be liable for 100 per cent. of the bill if the student gives up the course for any reason. Liability is to be determined day by day, which is a horrific prospect. Little wonder that most local authorities are already quailing at the task that lies ahead.

Mr. Allen McKay: It is interesting to note that, except for the Secretary of State, all the hon. Members on the Government Front Bench are members of the No Turning Back group.

Mr. Gould: That is a good illustration of what an unsuccessful battle the Secretary of State has had to carry his Front Bench team with him. That was well spotted by my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State is in an awkward position. He does not get to his feet to defend the measure—far from it. He occasionally graces us with his presence—I imagine that he derives a certain schadenfreude from the situation—but he leaves it to his No Turning Back group colleagues to defend the measure. At least they have the comfort of trying to defend it on the basis that they have salvaged something from the poll tax.
I pay tribute to the Minister of State's understanding of the measure. I think that he virtually drafted it, which is why he handled it throughout the Committee stage. The Secretary of State did not dare to come into the Committee Room because he did not understand the Bill and knew that he would be cut to ribbons if he dared to offer a view on it. Although the Minister of State understands the


matter, even he was led into a tangle by the discounts structure. Knowing the Minister of State as I do, I can think of no more wounding charge to make against him than that he was caught in illogicality in his own Bill. The discount system led him to assert that somebody who, on grounds of Alzheimer's disease, for example, was to be exempted from a personal contribution of 25 per cent. could nevertheless become responsible for somebody else's personal contribution under the principle of joint and several liability. What a heartless position and what nonsense.
How are local authorities to fight their way through the maze which the Government have created? How are they to track the millions of single householders who change address or status day by day, so that they can send out the appropriate bills? The Bill offers little guidance. Schedule 2 provides a few vaguely drawn powers for local authorities and Ministers have occasionally pontificated on how local authorities may grapple with that problem. But when a local authority treasurer, such as the treasurer in Birmingham city council, says that the only possible chance of dealing with the problem is by setting up a database and keeping a register, the Minister—far from saying that that may be the best way to proceed—says that it would be unlawful.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No, he does not.

Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman would care to invite the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box, he will hear confirmation from the Minister's own lips. I asked the Minister about that just a couple of days ago and he confirmed that his advice was that keeping a register is not only not necessary but unlawful. It seems that the Minister will not stir himself to dispute that—[Interruption.] I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply because it will be interesting to see whether he has departed from that position.
With little help or guidance, local authorities are faced with an enormous problem, but are told that it would be unlawful to keep a register.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman probe the Minister a little further about which legislation makes that list or register unlawful? Would it be unlawful under the data protection legislation? I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need such a list.

Mr. Gould: The Minister will no doubt speak for himself when the time comes, but he may take refuge in the data protection legislation and in the wider principle that a local authority is entitled to do nothing without specific statutory authority. The Minister will probably say that the Bill gives no such authority for the keeping of a register and will probably dismiss provisions such as the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That is the advice that he currently gives to local authorities.
There is a puzzle in all that, however, because the handbook, "Guidance for Party Workers on the Council Tax", issued by Conservative party central office, says that the head tax element is not extended to three, four and five-person households, because it would require the keeping of a register. Such households constitute 13 per cent. of the total and Conservative party central office says that 13 per cent. could not be traced without keeping a register. Yet, in respect of the 33 per cent. of one-person households, we are told not only that a register is not

needed, but that if a local authority tried to keep a register it would be acting unlawfully. I hope that the Minister will try to sort out that conundrum because it is a real, practical problem for local government.
The only advice that local government has had on that question is that it can resort to what the Minister calls "canvassing", but which most people would understand as snooping, and that they can refer to the electoral register. One of the great objections to the poll tax was the obstacle that it placed in the way of civil liberties. We know that 1 million people, wrongly and misguidedly, disappeared from the electoral register because they hoped that that would absolve them from having to pay the poll tax. We are now told under the new proposal that Ministers will encourage local authorities—indeed, they will leave them with little option—to refer to the electoral register. Therefore, the incentive for people to stay off the register will be greatly increased.
The pity of it all is that, even when local authorities resort to the electoral register, it will help them little because the electoral register is a snapshot of who lives in a particular building at a given moment in time. It will not help local authorities to track day by day, as they are required to do under the Bill, people who change address and status. The Government are asking local authorities to undertake a hopeless task.
Ministers are really saying that local authorities should simply forget about who should receive what sort of bill and just send out a standard bill to every household and wait for the cries of pain. Once they have been told that there is only one person in the household, they have to re-bill, or send another piece of paper with a different bill. It is all very simple. However, when I asked the Minister what calculation he had made of the number of communications needed to establish those facts—how many times bits of paper would flow backwards and forwards between a local authority and a household in one year to establish who was where on specific dates—he said that no estimate had been made. When I asked him about the cost, he said that no estimate had been made. But Ministers know that re-billing costs money.
When the Government changed the basis of billing for the current year by a last-minute change in the Budget, they made provision—I cannot remember the sum, but it was a substantial amount, perhaps £18 million—to cover the cost of local authorities having to re-bill. Therefore, they know that the procedure costs money, but blithely they say that that is what local authorities must do. Local councils have to shuttle bits of paper backwards and forwards to try to establish the correct bill.
7 pm
There are other costs involved in addition to those of the local authorities. When we take account of all those who will receive a single person's discount—7 million in principle—all those who will receive a double discount because their properties are empty and those who will receive status discounts, we find that the fair estimate, derived from Government figures, is that the discount scheme will cost £780 million. I used that figure in Committee and was not challenged, so I feel emboldened to do it again as I think that it is probably right.
Ministers are inclined to say that it is wonderful that £780 million is to be saved on account of poor people living alone, irrespective of whether or not they are well off. In truth, the £780 million is not simply saved—it does


not disappear, but has to be paid by somebody. Who pays for it? The ordinary family, which is why, under the Government's proposals, bills for such families will be so much higher than they would be normally. All the concessions made to well-off people who do not need help on financial grounds will have to be paid by someone.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I want to test the hon. Gentleman's definition of an ordinary, average family, as opposed to the well off. Let us suppose that a widow who, according to the hon. Gentleman's condescending phrase, is an "ordinary, average" widow, married in 1910 and now, aged 100, lives in the same house that she originally bought and mortgaged for £500. That house, for reasons quite beyond her control, is now worth £500,000. The widow produces absolutely no money and lives on a widow's pension. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that she is a well-off person, not an ordinary, average, rather poor widow?

Mr. Gould: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, characteristically, completely misunderstood the point. The widow he described would benefit from the Government's new generous provision introduced in the Bill and no doubt qualify for a 100 per cent. rebate. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South rightly said. that is the right way to deal with people whose ability to pay is called into question. Nothing that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross said removes the fact that the discount system is entirely misplaced and will cause enormous practical problems.
We have established on many occasions, and have done so again this evening, that the proposals for the discount system, the genesis of which is so disreputable. are unworkable and unfair. They will make it impossible for local authorities to implement the tax. They were included in the legislation for a political purpose, which is no longer necessary.
I conclude as I did in Committee by adopting the language of the Local Government Chronicle which, on 1 November, in a leading article, stated that the discount system would have to go sooner or later because it was unworkable and unfair. It stated that it would be better to do away with it now than allow it to cause a similar disaster to the one that we all suffered under the poll tax.
I wish that I could have some confidence that Conservative Members were alert to that danger, but unfortunately most of them have decided to sleep-walk their way through the Bill and we are now confronted with another poll tax disaster.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I support amendment No. 9.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) spoke of the genesis of discounts. I thought that it would be worth while to cast my mind back to the rating system. The great, central inequality of that system is highlighted by the classic example of two identical houses in one of which lived a widow while in the neighbouring one lived a household with two or three wage earners. It was that central inequity that made the rating system so terribly unpopular and resulted in the Leader of the Opposition rightly condemning it as grossly unfair.
During the 1979 election campaign I received much support because of my criticism of the rating system. I was embarrassed when I fought the 1983 election and nothing had been done about the rating system. It was a further

embarrassment to me that when I stood for the third time in 1987 the Government had still not acted on the rating system, when we had consistently given a pledge to eliminate the inequity of that system.
I was initially enthusiastic about the principle of the community charge which, when it was introduced, was going to benefit my constituency of Torbay through the grant-related expenditure assessment. However, GREA did not last long, and by November of the same year the standard spending assessment was introduced, to the tremendous disadvantage of my constituency, which ended up with the highest community charge in the south-west. From the moment that the details of the SSA became available, I consistently voted against the community charge. and that has remained my position to date.
I am now in a curious position. Amendment No. 9 recommends an increase in the discount from 25 to 50 per cent. I believe that that eliminates the inequality which was at the heart of the original rating system. My difficulty is that the Opposition oppose all discounts. I fear that in the Division I shall have to support the Government, which I had never intended to do, on the basis that it is much better to have a 25 per cent. discount than no discount at all. I urge the Government to accept amendment No. 9. The 50 per cent. discount would help those 7 million homes in this country housing single people who do not use the same level of services as those in neighbouring houses.
The Opposition may well dislike the idea of discounts, but it will be helpful to Government canvassers during the next election when it is stated that the Opposition opposed all discounts. Even if single people living alone receive only 25 per cent. discounts, they will be much better off than they would be under the Labour party's proposals.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As the Opposition believe that taxes, particularly local taxes, should be based on ability to pay, is it not absolutely scandalous that they suggest that the elderly and the single, whatever house they live in, should have to pay more than those with the ability to pay and are not willing to grant a discount?

Mr. Allason: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely correct; I endorse his remarks.
My constituency contains many single pensioners. There are probably more people over the age of 70 living in my constituency than in the constituencies of any other right hon. or hon. Member. I am concerned about those people because they do not use local authority services much but are penalised by high charges. South West Water, for instance, has the highest standing charges in the country.
My amendment would result in a reduction in the burden on these people to the tune of 50 per cent. I recommend that to the House because it will offer great relief to people who live alone. The elderly people in my constituency worry about their financial predicament. Generally, people become more worried about these matters as they get older. Amendment No. 9 would give many people tremendous relief—not just the elderly living alone but many other people at the lower end of the income scale, such as single-parent families. All would benefit from this generosity.
The principle of discounts has already been accepted—the Government accept the 25 per cent. I am merely asking for an extension of the logic which is already so well


known to Marsham street. We should increase the 25 per cent. discount to 50 per cent. I would even accept an increase to 35 per cent. There is a certain logic in claiming that single people living alone should be allowed to pay half the charge paid by their neighbours. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. David Bellotti: In Committee, my hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment to increase the discount from 25 to 50 per cent. Unfortunately, it was not well debated, due first to filibustering by Labour Members——

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure you would agree that, when an hon. Member uses the term filibuster to describe our proceedings, that is a slur not on Labour Members but on the Chairman of the Committee in question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I do not think that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) meant it that way.

Mr. Bellotti: The two Chairmen of that Committee gave distinguished service, and I am sure that no one took my remarks to mean what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) says they meant.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Bellotti: I want to finish my introduction before I give way.
There were some amazing interventions by Ministers in Committee as well. I remember one of 384 words during the discussion immediately before the debate on discounts. That resulted in my proposal to increase the discount to 50 per cent. not being taken until one and a half minutes before the guillotine fell. Despite that, I managed to speak 322 words in the time left to me by Labour Members and Ministers. At least tonight I have about 45 minutes in which to speak, and whether I take that much time will depend on how we get on. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) wants to intervene now I will give way to him—but I see that he has changed his mind.
I commend amendment No. 7 to the House. It would increase the discount from 25 to 40 per cent. It is true, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said, that single-person households face difficulties with meeting some of their costs of living from their income. One need only think of water, gas, electricity and telephone charges, which fall disproportionately on single person households. The council tax, too, will fall disproportionately on them because the 25 per cent. discount is not enough, given the average income of single person households compared with that of households containing two or more people.
7.15 pm
As the hon. Member for Torbay said, the Government have conceded the principle that some extra benefit should accrue to households containing only one person. The 25 per cent. discount represents the Government's attempt to meet that need, but have they really considered whether the figure relates precisely to people's incomes?

Mr. Maxton: I find the hon. Gentleman's arguments astonishing. He and his party advanced the idea of a local income tax based on ability to pay. Now he suggests a 40 per cent. discount for every single householder, whatever

his income. His system would mean that single householders on good incomes would pay much more than houses containing two or more people who, together, had poor incomes. What is the logic in that?

Mr. Bellotti: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, because it enables me to explain that proposals for a local income tax relating it to ability to pay have been rejected in Committee and on Report, so we are now in the business of trying to improve this unfair tax which is based on property. To do that, it is right to examine people's incomes and to see whether they can afford the tax.
The argument usually deployed is that the millionaire will benefit enormously, but there are very few millionaires. On the other hand, there are millions of elderly pensioners on low incomes in single households, all of whom will be hit by the council tax. We should pay more attention to those millions of elderly pensioners than to the much smaller number of millionaires.
This problem was known under the rates as the widow factor. The plight of widows was recognised by all parties; we all agreed that the rates were unfair to them. Indeed, that was one of the main reasons why the Government brought in the poll tax, which failed abysmally, just like the rates.
Even the Government have recognised the problem of widows. The Secretary of State for Wales, for instance, has said:
How much more abominable than a tax on widows? But that is what the rating system is.
The council tax will treat widows unfairly in the same way, because it does not give them the discount that they deserve.
The proposed discount will go only a certain way towards doing what is needful. We believe that a single-person home should receive a discount proportionate to the income of its occupant. Twenty-seven per cent. of people aged between 65 and 74 and 50 per cent. of those over the age of 75 live alone. Millions of people in our country live alone——

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about England, Wales, Scotland or Britain?

Mr. Bellotti: In every constituency represented by every hon. Member there are many elderly people living alone. Even with a 25 per cent discount, single adults living alone in a property banded above D will pay more under the council tax than under the poll tax. Is this fair? I do not believe that it is, and we ought to look at it again.
It is interesting to note that there is some all-party support for the idea of raising the discount above 25 per cent. Some members of the Committee would have liked to support such an amendment in Committee and we have had a speech already tonight from the Government Back Benches in support of it.
I will quote some specific figures that give credibility to amendment No. 7. Taking first the retirement pension of a single person at £52 and of a couple at £83·25, the single person's pension as a percentage of the couple's pension is 62 per cent. Then, looking at average pensioner income—this is from written answers in Hansard, 25 July 1990, c. 305–6, based on 1987 net income figures—the single person figure is £75·10 and the couple's figure is £145·67. The single person's income is 53 per cent. of the couple's income.
The next example, gross household income, is taken from the 1989 family expenditure survey. The pension of a single retired person mainly dependent on state benefits is £58·88 and that of a couple is £101·50. The single person's pension is 58 per cent. of the couple's.
Taking the average of those three quite different sets of figures, we draw the conclusion, as does Age Concern, which has advised the Committee and hon. Members in general on this, that the average single person's income is 60 per cent. of that of a household consisting of two people.
On the basis of those figures, and with the advice which Age Concern and other sources have given, we believe that the figure of 40 per cent. is the right one if one wishes to take into account the ability to pay and the income of the people whom we are taxing. Those are good principles for any taxation system. I challenge the Minister to deny that 40 per cent. is the right figure. If there are any sources available to the Government that disprove that figure, it is right that the Minister should put those sources to the House. He could not put them to the Committee and I look forward to seeing whether they can be put forward tonight. If they cannot, the Government must surely recognise that the 25 per cent. is 15 per cent. below what it should be and that we are asking single-person households, on average, to subsidise households of two or more persons in the payment of the council tax.
It is people on lowish incomes in that sort of situation who will suffer far more than those on higher incomes. I do not make any apology for accepting that single millionaires will be at an advantage in that situation, but the millions of people on lowish incomes, particularly the retired, will be penalised most. It is on behalf of the latter that we should have had an opportunity of voting in Committee, which we were denied, and that we should have an opportunity tonight to vote in the House. We know that there are hon. Members on the Government Back Benches who would have supported the proposal that the discount be increased from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. Not to have a vote, because of the guillotine and for other reasons, is to fail the very people for whom we should be speaking.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will treat this matter seriously. We could not have a debate in Committee and the House deserves serious answers on this extremely important issue. If we do not get them, when this tax is put into place many single elderly people, in particular, will feel not only hard done by but that they have not been properly considered.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am absolutely delighted that in this Bill the Government have provided the discount for a single-person household and that that discount is automatic and mandatory. I am delighted, too, that my constituents can be told in the coming months that the Labour party does not want the single-person household to have a discount.
As the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said earlier—I apologise for referring to him when he is not in his place—there are 7 million single-person households in this country. He also pointed out in Committee, when we had no figures to put to him, that there are a very large number of second homes whose owners will effectively receive a 50 per cent. discount through only paying the

property element of the tax. It is that 50 per cent. for the empty, unoccupied homes that makes it very difficult for me to go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who wanted the 50 per cent. to apply to a single-person household.
The hon. Member for Dagenham quite rightly used the Government figure of £780 million as the amount by which the discount system will be beneficial to single-person households. I objected in Committee and in the House tonight to his implication—it was not stated in so many words—that the £780 million would be paid locally by the other people in the area picking up the bill for the single-person households. That is a gross distortion of the truth.
The reality is that the number of single-person households in a particular district is part of the profile that is drawn in order to establish the standard spending assessment, and therefore the grant that goes to the local authority. So that £780 million is being paid by all of us from the generality of taxation.

Mr. Robin Squire: Just to underline what my hon. Friend is saying, it is also the case that the profile takes into account second homes, so that the same principle applies there too.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: That is absolutely right. That £780 million is part of the 85 per cent., give or take a couple of percentage points, that central taxation and the unified business rate provide in financial support to our local authorities.
Perhaps I can draw a little further on the hard work and research of the hon. Member for Dagenham. He pointed out in Committee that, according to the Audit Commission, the proportion in inner city areas is probably around 40 per cent. and in some London boroughs is as high as 50 per cent. Yet the Labour party still opposes these single-person discounts. I represent an inner city seat. If 40 per cent. of my households are single-person households—I do not think that it is quite that high—I shall make absolutely certain that every one knows the Labour party's policy for them.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I do not think that my hon. Friend will be able to do quite that. He will be able to tell them about the Labour party's opposition to discounts, but he will not be able to tell them how much they would pay under the Labour party system, because the Labour party will not say.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: That is fair comment. I do believe that it is a case of think of a number and double it.
The Labour party says that we cannot argue that a single person should pay less than a family next door with several working adults. We have all made mistakes politically.

Mr. William O'Brien: The poll tax.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes. We made many mistakes, but there was one piece of common ground for hon. Members on both sides of the House, which apparently no longer exists. It was that it was unfair for the single-person household to pay the same as the household with two, three, four or five members. That was said year after year.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman voted for the community charge.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes, I plead guilty. I voted for it. It seemed a damn good principle at the time.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my hon. Friend think that that is an entirely happy precedent when he is discussing discounts which are fraught with anomaly, difficulty and contradiction? He has been wrong once; can he be sure that he will not be wrong again?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: What do people say about needing enemies? Of course we all make mistakes. My hon. Friend may be that perfect example of a person who never has——

Mr. Wilkinson: No. I made the same mistake.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes, I made a mistake. No. I do not think that I shall make the same mistake again.
The Labour party now shuts its eyes to the two, three or four-person household, and it ignores the single pensioner living alone. Day after day, Labour Members love to quote the case of the single millionaire. Unhappily, I am not a member of the exclusive club of millionaires. I can think of only one or two in my acquaintance, but in order to find an answer to the perennial argument of the single millionaire, I asked someone whom I believe is a millionaire. The House will forgive me stealing someone else's comment. He said, "Martin, don't be silly. There is no such thing as a single millionaire. We would at least have a butler." That quietly disposes of the argument. Never mind, it seemed a good story at the time.
The Labour party said that it wanted some mechanism other than discounts; that it would deal with pensioners with what it called a single pensioner premium. But, as Conservative Members pointed out in Committee, to talk about a single pensioner premium is to concede the principle behind discounts. It was also pointed out in Committee that, if single pensioners received such a premium, so would a millionaire. Conservative Members asked, why just a pensioner—what about a single widow? There seemed to be no answer to that question. The Labour party is not consistent, but it never is.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) is not in her place. In Committee, she was keen to defend the rights of the single working mother with a 20-year-old daughter who came home from college. She was determined to defend the discount to that mother, although that did not seem to fit the rest of her contributions in Committee.
When my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that such a student would be invisible, that a student returning for the summer holidays would not affect that household, I was not sure whether the hon. Lady was pleased or angry. She should not accept my hon. Friend's assurances. But having 22,000 students milling around my city. I am delighted about the Government's attitude to student discounts and particularly to the student gap, as it is called—the three months which often used to cause problems under the old community charge arrangements.
In Committee, we had long discussions about that, and were genuinely sympathetic to the worries expressed by the citizens advice bureaux. However, they seemed to be arguing that, somehow or other, the single person's discount would deter people from renting out rooms in their homes. That argument is almost impossible to accept. It is a completely unfounded fear, but even if there were

the odd few cases of people refusing to rent out a room in their home because, in their ignorance, they felt that, as landlords, they would be penalised, are we seriously to argue that we should deny the discount to the other 7 million people? That is an extraordinary situation.
As we are running short of time, let me end with one area where there is a clear divide. I have said that the most unpopular aspect of the old rating system was the fact that the single person household paid the same as the multi-occupied household next door. That was common ground between Labour and Conservative Members, but it is no longer. The hon. Member for Dagenham has said time and again that the Labour party objects in principle to the discount system, and perhaps we should emphasise that. That is something that we should proclaim loud and clear. That is the biggest criticism that we can lay at the Labour party's door.

Mr. Peter Fry: I shall not detain the House long, but I want to refer to two aspects of discounts. The debate and the Bill are not just about local government finance but about the acceptability of local government finance. The point has been made clearly that the rating system was completely unpopular, particularly to people living on their own. That is accepted by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti), just as it is accepted on the Conservative Benches. It is incredible that the Labour party, which has reformed itself and brought itself up to date in so many other policies, is going back to an old policy on local government finance.
But what made the community charge so unpopular was its size and certain iniquities. The great advantage—let us talk about the advantages—to many single people was that the community charge was fairer than the rating system. In this short debate, we have to address ourselves to the question whether the discount of 25 per cent. being suggested for the single householder is sufficient. I would venture to suggest that it is not.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), because common sense dictates that to run a household on one's own is considerably more expensive than for two people with two incomes. We must recognise that. I appreciate that the legislation, as drawn, enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to draw up regulations which could redefine the 25 per cent. Therefore, I join those who say that that 25 per cent. should be altered, perhaps to 33⅓ per cent.
Discounts for empty properties will be assessed at 50 per cent. My hon. Friend the Minister knows full well that, under the rating system, local authorities had a great deal of discretion about whether to charge on empty properties. Under the community charge, they retained that discretion. In fact, they had even greater discretion, because they were allowed to charge from nothing up to twice the standard community charge. But, as I understand it, the present legislation insists that all empty properties will be assessed at 50 per cent.
Some of the people who complain most bitterly about the community charge are those who discover after their homes have been repossessed that they must pay the charge not only on their new property—because it is imposed on the individual—but on the property which they lost, and which they thought was now the responsibility of the building society. They discover to their horror that they are still legally liable.
Some local authorities, such as Torbay, that have within them a large number of second homes, from which they must derive some income because of the cost incurred in administering that situation, might like greater flexibility—such as that available under the rating and community charge systems. East Northants district council wrote asking me to make that specific point.
Despite the two question marks that I put over the Bill, I believe that the Government are right to proceed with the reforms that it contains. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities on the way that he has piloted the Bill through the House so far.

Mr. Portillo: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for his kind remarks. I am not surprised that he ventured into the fray this evening, because he has already won an outstanding victory for his constituents and I well understand his desire to enjoy another. Before the Bill came before the House, we decided to make a change so that an authority with very enlightened policies—such as East Northants—which was able to reduce both its community charge and that which the county imposed should be permitted to continue doing so under the council tax. Therefore, the tax imposed by any county can be reduced by a district. That is an important reform for my hon. Friend's constituents and I congratulate him again on that victory.
It is satisfying when a Minister is attacked from opposite directions—by both one's own right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members. That is quite something. I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). It was full of fantasy, was entertaining and purported to represent conversations in the Department of the Environment. The hon. Gentleman produced a more entertaining account than life itself—and given that life has been fairly entertaining over the past year, that is quite an achievement.
The hon. Member for Dagenham said that the Government are not prepared to move to a property tax and he is absolutely right—we are not. I do not believe that the British public are prepared to move to a property tax. They got fed up when there was one and only a party that has been out of power and living in blinkers for the past 12 years could possibly propose returning to a naked property tax.
The hon. Member for Dagenham said also that the proposed discounts have nothing to do with ability to pay. It is certainly the case that they are not crafted against people's incomes. However, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that large numbers of people—such as widows, single pensioners and young people starting out in life—live on their own as single occupants of households. They are not touched by the rebate system, because—generous and expensive though it is—it does not reach them.
Although Labour promises more generous rebates, no one believes it, because the proposal has not been costed, no details of it are available and no money would be made available. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would be shocked if she knew the extent to which the hon. Member for Dagenham attempts to lead the public into believing that Labour would operate a more generous rebate system.
That leaves groups of people who are above income support and rebate levels, but who none the less have quite

modest incomes. We believe that a single person discount is suitable. The hon. Member for Dagenham—greatly to his political peril—refuses to acknowledge the resentment that was felt by those living alone because their liability under the rating system was the same as the family living in a similar property next door. That shows an extraordinary lack of understanding by Labour and I am delighted by it.
7.45 pm
The fact that Labour is committed to giving no discounts is—as was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—marvellous news from our point of view. It is extraordinary that Labour should be so out of touch with public feeling.
It is rich for the hon. Member for Dagenham to claim that he is worried about the complexity of our proposal; that from the hon. Gentleman who suggests that there should be property valuations on four different bases and annual rolling revaluations on a banded basis—although he keeps rather quiet about it. It is extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman to say that he is worried also about the administrative complexity of our proposal. We could propose a simpler system. A naked property tax would be simpler, but it would not be as fair. We are prepared to adopt a system that is a little more complicated, provided that it is fairer and responds more to the wishes of the British public.
No register is needed. The onus is on the individual claiming the single-person discount to inform the local authority and there is no reason why it should not conduct a canvass to establish who will be claiming that discount. That is quite different from asking single persons entitled to the discount to inform the local authority of that fact and to record their names. It is absolutely different from keeping a register of every adult in the community. Labour has not made headway with that point.
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is not designed for that purpose and it is dubious whether it could be used in that way. It could run foul of data protection legislation. The Data Protection Registrar is quoted as warning local councils that they could break the law if they maintain a register of all adults for the council tax. The Municipal Journal also quoted David Smith, the assistant registrar, as saying that "excessive" or "irrelevant" information held on computer would fall foul of the Data Protection Act 1984. For households that did not qualify for council tax discount, data on adults other than the liable person did not appear to be necessary. The 1976 Act, which does not apply to Scotland, is not suitable for that purpose and I am considering whether it should be disapplied for that purpose. I propose to consult local authority associations on that very point.

Mr. Douglas: Has the Minister clarified with the Data Protection Registrar the question of local authorities compiling a list? What would be the difference in data protection terms between a list and a register? They would seem to have the same purpose. Can the Minister give any assurances on that point?

Mr. Portillo: A local authority will record those people who step forward as being entitled to single-person discounts. It may record also those who are liable persons. There is no problem with that; it is quite different from a register.

Mr. Gould: That matter is of great practical importance to local authorities. Does the Minister agree that his own remarks today and those of the Data Protection Registrar are a good deal less categorical than the Minister's earlier assertion that the keeping of a register would be unlawful? When does the Minister propose to resolve that issue? Does he understand and accept that it is important that local authorities should receive reliable guidance as soon as possible?

Mr. Portillo: Yes, and when the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks, he will see that I said that I am considering disapplying the 1976 Act and that I want to talk to local authority associations about that, so we will be in consultation with them.
I voted for my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay in 1983 in Battersea. I did so with great enthusiasm—not least because of his stand against rates. I commiserate with my hon. Friend on his misfortune this evening, in finding himself inadvertently supporting us in the Lobby. My hon. Friend will realise that I do not wish to mislead him and that the setting of discounts for single people is a matter of judgment. Given that we wish to raise a given sum by means of the tax, a more generous discount will involve a higher headline figure for double-adult and larger households.
Let us take the example of a band D property containing two adults, whose council tax for standard spending is £400. If we allowed single people a 50 per cent. discount, that amount would have to rise to about £440. Let me add that the council tax is partly personal and partly property-based. If we regard the proportions as "half and half', it is logical to assume that households containing two or more people should pay 100 per cent., that the occupants of a house that is empty or not their principal residence should pay 50 per cent., and that a single occupant—being, as it were, in the middle—should pay 75 per cent.

Mr. Wilkinson: In my constituency which is in outer London, someone living alone and receiving a 25 per cent. discount will pay less than the current poll tax charge—£215—only if he or she lives in a property in the lowest two or three bands. In my constituency, such properties simply do not exist.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has chosen his example carefully. He will probably find that such a person will pay much less than he or she paid in rates and the Government have just reduced the community charge by £140. When the aim is to raise the same amount by means of a different tax, the burden is redistributed: some people pay more, while others pay less.
As we know, the Opposition are committed to an arrangement that would involve no transitional relief for people such as my hon. Friend's constituents, who may pay more under the council tax. We are committed to the provision of such relief. The Opposition are committed to an arrangement whereby there would be no limit to the amounts charged; under a Labour Government who returned to the old rating system, my hon. Friend's constituent would have to pay vast sums. Labour's would be an envy tax, which would squeeze the last penny out of everyone who happened to live in an expensive property.
Under Labour, there would be no capping of councils. Whatever those in the extremist town halls run by Labour decided to spend, the impost would be levied on the poor

people living in the areas concerned. They would have to pay through the nose, as they did when Labour was last in power and as they did under the rating system.
Here is my warning to anyone who is considering voting for Labour and a return to the rates: do not be young, do not be single and do not be a widow, for Labour says that there should be no discounts. For that reason, I know that my hon. Friends will join me enthusiastically in defeating the amendment.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) described the Bill's flaws and weaknesses in detail. Understandably, the Minister did not address my hon. Friend's points: after all, the Government have been unable to reply to many of the points that have been raised by Opposition Members over the past two days.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and others referred to the old rating system. The Minister has made great play of the fact that that system had to be abolished; it took 14 years for it to happen and, after a few months, a new scheme that had received the full support of the Minister and his hon. Friends had to be scrapped because it was not working. The poll tax created much hurt and hardship for many people, but not once did Conservative Members express any regret.
Conservative Members who supported the poll tax now say that it does not work and that it must go. Having admitted that he was wrong then, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) was asked how he knew that he was not wrong now. Time will tell. I am sure that the elderly, the young and the single will perceive that the new system will inflict as much hurt and hardship as did the poll tax, if not more.
According to Conservative Members, those who do not benefit from services should not contribute to the cost of those services. What will they tell Ministers about what should be paid for social services, the police, the fire brigade, street cleaning and highway maintenance? They are talking poppycock; it is impossible to assess the amounts involved. Instead of going around his constituency explaining what Labour policy is, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South should explain what Tory policy is. Clearly, he wants to explain Labour policy because he is afraid to tell his constituents about Tory policy.
We want to hear a proper response to the points made by Opposition Members. We have merely heard bids from Conservative Members: a 50 per cent. discount here, 40 per cent. there and 35 per cent. somewhere else—and 25 per cent. from Ministers. It is a dutch auction. What has not been explained is who will pay for the discounts.
Clearly, those who pay will be the people who do not receive such discounts—the pensioner couple and the single earner in a family household. We have been told that the Bill is self-financing. Someone must pay for the discounts, but it will not be the Government; it will be members of the community who are not entitled to discounts. That is what people in constituencies such as Nottingham, South and Torbay should be told.
As the Opposition pointed out in Committee, we need a fair and proper rebate system, based on ability to pay. That is what the Government are shying away from. Such a system would be far better than a system that paid discounts to people who were not entitled to them. How will local authorities set their budgets if they have to


calculate so many discounts? The Minister said that it was for the people entitled to discounts to apply for them, but how can a local authority set a budget if it will then have to disburse millions of pounds for discount purposes? The whole concept is misleading. The Minister should discuss the matter with the local authority associations. If the discount proposals outlined in the Bill stand, local authorities will have great difficulty in setting and administering their budgets.
When I questioned the Minister in Committee about the discount for disabled people who are in band A, he said that unfortunately no provision would be made for disabled people in band A who need to make adjustments to their property. No Conservative Member has referred to a discount—not even the hon. Member for Torbay—

It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [12 November], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 343.

Division No. 30]
[8.00 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eadie, Alexander


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Edwards, Huw


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Enright, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Faulds, Andrew


Bell, Stuart
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Flannery, Martin


Benton, Joseph
Flynn, Paul


Blair, Tony
Foster, Derek


Blunkett, David
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Boyes, Roland
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galbraith, Sam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galloway, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
George, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gould, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clelland, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbett, Robin
Haynes, Frank


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cousins, Jim
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cox, Tom
Henderson, Doug


Crowther, Stan
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hood, Jimmy


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Darling, Alistair
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hoyle, Doug


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)





Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pendry, Tom


Illsley, Eric
Pike, Peter L.


Ingram, Adam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Randall, Stuart


Kilfoyle, Peter
Redmond, Martin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Reid, Dr John


Lambie, David
Richardson, Jo


Lamond, James
Robertson, George


Leighton, Ron
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lewis, Terry
Rogers, Allan


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Rooney, Terence


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sheerman, Barry


McFall, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Short, Clare


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Gavin


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Straw, Jack


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Walley, Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wareing, Robert N.


Morgan, Rhodri
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Morley, Elliot
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Nellist, Dave
Winnick, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Worthington, Tony


O'Brien, William
Wray, Jimmy


O'Hara, Edward



O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Parry, Robert
 Mr. Jack Thompson.


Patchett, Terry





NOES


Adley, Robert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Beith, A. J.


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellotti, David


Allason, Rupert
Bendall, Vivian


Alton, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, W.


Amess, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amos, Alan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Body, Sir Richard


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bowis, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Batiste, Spencer
Brandon-Bravo, Martin






Brazier, Julian
Gregory, Conal


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grist, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Ground, Patrick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grylls, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Chris
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carr, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Cartwright, John
Hayward, Robert


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chope, Christopher
Hill, James


Churchill, Mr
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howells, Geraint


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irving, Sir Charles


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geofirey


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnston, Sir Russell


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kennedy, Charles


Dykes, Hugh
Key, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Kilfedder, James


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Evennett, David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fallon, Michael
Kirkwood, Archy


Farr, Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Favell, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knowles, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Knox, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fookes, Dame Janet
Latham, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forth, Eric
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Franks, Cecil
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Freeman, Roger
Livsey, Richard


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Gill, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maclean, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Madel, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mans, Keith





Maples, John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marlow, Tony
Shersby, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mates, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speed, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Squire, Robin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miller, Sir Hal
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Miscampbell, Norman
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David
Stevens, Lewis


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stokes, Sir John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mudd, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Needham, Richard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thorne, Neil


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trippier, David


Page, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wallace, James


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Michael
Walters, Sir Dennis


Powell, William (Corby)
Ward, John


Price, Sir David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, John
Wells, Bowen


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Whitney, Ray


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sainsbury, Hon Tim



Sayeed, Jonathan
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Shelton, Sir William

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then, pursuant to Order [12 November], proceeded to put the Questions on the remaining amendments, moved by a member of the Government.

Clause 26

POWERS OF ENTRY

Amendments made: No. 125, in page 17, line 6, leave out `24 hours' and insert 'three clear days.'.

No. 126, in page 17, line 7, at end insert
'; and there shall be disregarded for this purpose any day which is—
(a) a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday; or
(b) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Clause 89

POWERS OF ENTRY

Amendments made: No. 117, in page 60, line 6, leave out `24 hours' and insert 'three clear days.'.

No. 118, in page 60, line 7, at end insert
`; and there shall be disregarded for this purpose any day which is—
(a) a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday; or
(b) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in Scotland.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 94

SUBSTITUTED AND REDUCED SETTINGS

Amendments made: No. 119, in page 64, line 2, after 'a', insert 'substituted or'.

No. 120, in page 64, line 4, after 'that', insert `substituted or'.

No. 121, in page 64, line 5, at end insert 'substituted or'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 116

SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 127, in page 78, line 1, after first 'Ace, insert
'(except section (Transitory exemption for school leavers))'.

No. 128, in page 78, line 6, after first 'Act', insert
'(except section (Transitory exemption for school leavers))'.—[ Mr. Portillo.]

Schedule 1

PERSONS DISREGARDED FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOUNT

Amendment made: No. 129, in page 80, line 44, after `impaired', insert—
'(aa) as regards any period which includes the day he is stated in a certificate of a registered medical practitioner to have been or to be likely to be severely mentally impaired;'.—[ Mr. Portillo.]

Schedule 2

ADMINISTRATION

Amendments made: No. 130, in page 87, line 36, leave out from 'shall' to 'of in line 37 and insert
', as respects each dwelling shown in the copy which in the opinion of the authority will be a relevant dwelling on the day when the list comes into force, notify the person concerned'.

No. 131, in page 87, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 132, in page 88, line 1, leave out 'an exempt' and insert 'a relevant'.

No. 133, in page 88, line 3, leave out 'owner of the dwelling' and insert 'person concerned'.

No. 134, in page 88, line 12, leave out 'an exempt' and insert 'a relevant'.

No. 135, in page 88, line 14, leave out 'owner of the dwelling' and insert 'person concerned'.

No. 136, in page 88, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this paragraph a dwelling is a relevant dwelling on any day if—
(a) on the day the dwelling is an exempt dwelling; or
(b) in respect of the financial year in which the day falls and the dwelling, the amount set under section 30 or 93 of this Act or, where the authority is a regional council each amount set under section 93 of this Act is nil.
( ) In this paragraph any reference to the person concerned is a reference to a person who, in respect of the particular dwelling, would be solely liable to pay to the authority an amount in respect of council tax for the particular day if the dwelling were not or had not been a relevant dwelling on that day.'.

No. 137, in page 89, line 13, at beginning insert—
'.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include, as regards a case where, in respect of a particular dwelling, persons would be jointly and severally liable to pay to an authority an amount in respect of council tax for a particular day if the dwelling were not or had not been on that day a relevant dwelling for the purposes of paragraph 8 above, provision equivalent to that included under that paragraph subject to any modifications the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(2)'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Schedule 3

PENALTIES

Amendments made: No. 138, in page 93, line 18, leave out '10' and insert '10(2)'.

No. 139, in page 93, line 28, leave out '10' and insert `10(2)'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Schedule 4

ENFORCEMENT: ENGLAND AND WALES

Amendments made: No. 140, in page 97, line 6, leave out from `have' to 'in' in line 7 and insert
', or subsequently ceases to have, the debtor'.

No. 141, in page 97, line 44, at end insert—
`(7) The provisions of this paragraph (except subparagraphs (3) and (4)(b) above) shall apply to elected members of billing authorities or relevant precepting authorities as they apply to persons in employment; and for the purposes of the application of those provisions in relation to any such members—
(a) any reference to a person having the debtor in his employment shall be construed as a reference to such an authority having the debtor as an elected member; and
(b) any reference to the debtor's earnings shall be construed as a reference to allowances payable to the debtor by such an authority.
(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above—
(a) a relevant precepting authority is a major precepting authority other than the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District; and
(b) a person is an elected member of a relevant precepting authority other than a county council if he is appointed to the authority by a constituent council of which he is an elected member.'.

No. 142, in page 101, line 23, at end insert—
'(2) Any reference in this paragraph to attachment of earnings includes a reference to attachment of allowances.'.—[ Mr. Portillo.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent signified].

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I wish to say at once how much I have enjoyed the deliberations on the Bill. I have many reasons for saying that. First, the Bill has enabled the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities—my hon. friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo)—to establish a formidable parliamentary reputation because of the way in which he led the Government side in Committee, aided and abetted by Under-Secretaries from virtually every part of the United Kingdom. They deployed the case as admirably as we all knew they would. I thank them and all my hon. Friends who helped them in Committee.
Secondly, I pay tribute to the Opposition for the way in which they conducted themselves. They started with one general speech and they recycled it hour after hour, day after day. As I listened a few minutes ago to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), I remembered all too well the speech in which he first addressed this subject about a year ago. His speech today was identical to that one and was certainly no better.
There have been lengthy deliberations on the Bill. Despite the opportunities provided by the guillotine arrangement for a full and lengthy analysis of the Bill, the Labour party filibustered to use up the almost over-generous time—as it appears—which the House made available to it. It is something of a disappointment——

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I served on the Standing Committee. On several occasions, we said that we felt that Tory Members were deliberately wasting the Committee's time. It was firmly pointed out to us that such a complaint was a criticism of the Chair and not of the conduct of hon. Members. Does that apply here as well?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am sure that the Committee Chairman would have reproached any hon. Member who did not follow the procedures of the House.

Mr. Heseltine: Because, like me, you were not in attendance for every moment of the Committee's deliberations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be extremely helpful to remind you that the Committee Chairman had to reprove hon. Members at one stage——

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It happened twice.

Mr. Heseltine: I must update my information. The Committee Chairman had to reprove Opposition Members twice for filibustering. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is correct—that has proved beyond peradventure our worst suspicions about the conduct of those affairs.
Another curious aspect of the conduct of the debate will not have escaped the attention of the House. It is a year since we were told that the Labour party would conduct a tooth-and-nail opposition to the Bill. The Labour party was, we were told, totally opposed to it. Labour Members thought that it was wholly unacceptable, ill-considered, ill-prepared and beyond anything that local government was prepared to accept.
One would have thought that today, with this last chance, we would find Labour Members gathered on the Opposition Benches to cheer on their leading spokesmen as they tore into this piece of Tory legislation. I must confess that I have kept a note as the hours have gone wearily past to see whether the first three or the next five would add to the number of Labour Members present as the tension mounted. It is now the dinner hour, and we are within nearly an hour and an a half of the solemnity of the Bill passing from this place, and there are the Labour Members—just seven of them—to deploy their case. That says all there is to be said.
There is no fight left in Her Majesty's Opposition. The reason is not just that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities destroyed their arguments day after day; they have failed in another respect to match up to the enormity of the opportunity we gave them. I should have thought that the Opposition would come forward with their own measured proposals tabled in amendment after amendment so that their argument could be weighed against ours.
I do not for one minute suggest that the Opposition did not think of that idea for themselves. Just a few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was leaping about all over the place, waving a Bill which he had carefuly drafted to get rid of the poll tax. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that the Opposition can draft Bills and amendments and have them debated. The moment that he failed to succeed in that particular—and wholly irrelevant—gesture, the idea of putting in amendment form the proposals in "Fair Rates" had no appeal for the Opposition. We know why—they do not have the first idea how they would grapple with the complexities of local government finance, how they would draft the legislation and what instructions they would give. That has been manifestly proved by the way in which they have conducted their opposition to the Bill today.
There is a third reason why I have so enjoyed the passage of the legislation. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) yesterday entertained the House with a historical re-run. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) here—he is a former member of the Labour party, who is now found somewhere else, in the Scottish nationalist movement, I think. He yesterday took what I thought was a wholly justified onslaught.
I thought that the Labour party was less than fair to the Scottish National party yesterday when it tried to suggest that it was that party which had somehow incited the nation not to pay the poll tax. I am not saying that the Scottish National party was not part of that process—I am sure that it was, because there are few bizarre extremities in which it is not playing its role. However, the idea that it was the Scottish National party which incited the nation not to pay the poll tax is not historically accurate.
When I read Hansard, I could hardly believe it. I shall read three quotations which are jewels of parliamentary history. In the first, the hon. Member for Garscadden said:
Politicians who hope to make law cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. It is a luxury which they cannot afford and which sets a dangerous precedent.
What were certain Labour Members of Parliament doing without let or hindrance from their leaders or Front-Bench spokesmen who have no complaints, who campaigned for them, who sought to get them elected to the House, who sat with them, who issued the Whip and allowed them to


take part in Committees, no matter what protests they made to stop people paying the poll tax? Now an Opposition spokesman is suggesting that that is a dangerous precedent.
However, it did not stop there. The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Non-payment was bound to affect local government services—it was designed to do so. Marginal reductions in funding hit many of the most vulnerable in the community.
We have been saying that for days, weeks and months. The Opposition have been bringing about those marginal reductions in revenue which, according to their own spokesman, hit the least privileged members of society, the very people whom the Labour party claims to represent.
The third quotation is very much along the same lines. The hon. Gentleman said:
When a library closes or education services suffer, people are entitled to ask, 'Is this the price that we are now paying for the SNP non-payment campaign?'"—[Official Report, 16 December 1991: Vol. 201, c.35.]
No, it was the price we were paying for the Labour party's non-payment campaign. A new scale of hypocrisy was yesterday introduced into the debate by the parliamentary Labour Party.
The fourth and final reason for supporting Third Reading is simple. The legislation, despite all the delaying tactics of the parliamentary Labour party, brings the poll tax to an end at the earliest possible practical opportunity. While the Labour party has tried to ensure that the poll tax remains on the statute book, we have been determined that it should go, and a Third Reading will bring that about.
The Bill provides for the poll tax's replacement, also at the earliest possible opportunity, by a new fair council tax which will be in place by April 1993. It also preserves the arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the levels of the community charge by £140 per payer, and we are determined to maintain those lower levels of payment in the new system. That, of course, contrasts starkly with the aim of the Labour party, which is determined that there will be an unfettered ability for local authorities—too often controlled by Labour—to spend without regard under any system of local government finance that it would introduce.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities eloquently said, there is now a very sensible and clear distinction. We shall have a fair system in place by 1993. There will be rebates for those who cannot afford to pay, there will be discounts for single people and a broad spread to reflect the ability of people in homes to pay a reasonable amount in accordance with the circumstances of the household. Against that, the parliamentary Labour party is determined—if it won power—not only to increase income tax to 59p in the pound, but to allow local taxes to rise without let or hindrance. The more Labour can tax people, the more it will be pleased. One fact from which the country can take satisfaction is that the Bill on which we are voting tonight will be on the statute book next year, when this party has won the election to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Gould: I suppose that we should be flattered that the Secretary of State graced us not only with his presence but with a contribution to the debate. Clearly, that was a

late change of plan as Government business managers had provided us with a piece of paper which assured us that "Mr. Michael Portillo" would open for the Government. Who knows which of our taunts or what embarrassment the Secretary of State felt at our jibes that he did not have the courage to speak about the measure and knew nothing about it finally forced him to his feet? Was it worth waiting for? I fear not.
The Secretary of State confirmed all that we had said—that he knew nothing about the measure. It was no wonder that he dared not come to Committee to suffer the assault on the details of the provisions because he did not understand them. Consequently, even under pressure, he waited for the moment when he could indulge in his favourite tactic of airily using a broad brush. It struck me that he was in the mode in which he is most comfortable—a mode which has no relation to the detail of the Bill, to the facts of life or to the realities of local government. He could make a few broad points of doubtful validity and then sit down with the sycophantic cheers of a handful of his supporters ringing in his ears.
The one interesting thing that the Secretary of State said was that he enjoyed the passage of the Bill through the Committee. I bet he did. I bet that he enjoyed it enormously from his dinner table, from his opera seat, from the theatre or from his bed, for heaven's sake, while the rest of us were doing our duty and considering the Bill that he had introduced as a supposed solution to the problem of the poll tax.
The Secretary of State said that the great virtue of the Bill was that it abolished the poll tax. There is cause for celebration in the fact that clause 100 proclaims the end of the poll tax, but would that it were so. If the Bill did abolish the poll tax, we could at least say that, whatever its other failings and shortcomings, it had at least achieved that. However, I am afraid that even that limited purpose is inadequately served by the legislation. We have heard hints to that effect from the speeches made even today by some Conservative hon. Members, very few of whom—indeed none of whom, as I understand it—are willing to stand up for the principle of the poll tax. As I understand it, none of them will vote against the Bill because of clause 100. All those brave soldiers in the cause of the poll tax who were going to surrender their honour and virtue at high cost and die in the last ditch will all troop through the Lobbies to vote for that clause. The only exception of whom I know among Conservative Members who is likely to vote against the Bill will do so on different grounds.

Mr. Wilkinson: Abstain.

Mr. Gould: Even to abstain is an achievement. As I understand it, no one else among all those poll tax warriors will vote against the Bill. How they must choke on it. Every word that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), for example, uttered throughout the Committee dripped with regret for the fact that the poll tax is to go, and dripped with support and enthusiasm for the whole principle of the poll tax.
Is the poll tax unfair, as the Secretary of State and the Government say? The people could not be persuaded that it was fair. Is it unfair according to the hon. Members for Battersea and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), and according to all the others who think like them? Not a bit of it. The poll tax is a wonderful tax and is not at all unfair. They choke on it, but they will vote for its abolition.
Was the poll tax virtually uncollectable, as the Prime Minister said? Of course not, says the hon. Member for Battersea: if only everyone was as virtuous as Wandsworth council, there would be no problem. The poll tax may be abolished by clause 100 in language——

Mr. Bill Walker: rose——

Mr. Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He must give way.

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman has only just asked. I will complete the point first. To give the hon. Member for Tayside, North credit, he was looking at me rather than at his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. I watched the hon. Member for Battersea closely because I expected him to want to intervene earlier. He took an awfully long time to summon his thoughts, to get his wits together and to decide that he wanted to intervene. I am sure that he will establish once and for all his undying allegiance to the poll tax. If he cannot quite do that, I have no doubt that he will explain why, despite that undying allegiance, he proposes to vote for the abolition of the poll tax. Once he has explained that, I have no doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North will explain likewise. I give way to the hon. Member for Battersea.

Mr. Bowis: It took a long time coming. We were and are content with the community charge in Wandsworth for this year and next year—zero and zero—but, alas, that has not been the case in many areas in which our nation is ruled by Labour councils which have imposed such high charges that it has been impossible for people to put up with them. In the interests of my fellow man, I am prepared to sacrifice my own personal interest and comfort.
What does the hon. Gentleman mean about collectability? If there is a zero charge, it is not too difficult to collect. Has the hon. Gentleman not yet worked out the mathematics of that?

Mr. Gould: I am not sure that anyone will be persuaded by that bit of sophistry. I was not aware of the point on which the hon. Gentleman seems to rely, which is that no Conservative-controlled authorities or Conservative voters are unhappy about the poll tax. That comes as something of a surprise and it is a good instance of history being rewritten. Let us see whether the hon. Member for Tayside, North can be any more persuasive. Let us give him his chance now.

Mr. Bill Walker: We had some enjoyable exchanges in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will know that I do not apologise to him or to anyone else for the fact that I believe that the poll tax in principle was right. I believe that the level at which it was brought in and the level that it achieved latterly were the reasons why it had problems. If the Government had accepted earlier the proposals suggested by me and by others—which they did latterly—about transferring some of the local charge to value added tax, there would have been no difficulty in sustaining the position on the community charge.

Mr. Gould: No doubt each Conservative Member will make peace with his or her conscience. Each will have his or her own little excuse, unconvincing though it may be, for abandoning the principle to which he or she so strongly adhered. We must conclude that no Conservative Member has the courage of his convictions. No Conservative

Member will vote against the abolition of the poll tax on the ground that he adheres to the principle that he has so bravely espoused.
What was most significant about the brief intervention by the hon. Member for Tayside, North and the one point that I found convincing was his assertion that he would offer no apology to me or to anyone else. That is regarded in the country as the most unforgivable arrogance by the Conservative party. Having created such havoc, such misery and such disrespect for the law, having undermined local government, having obstructed civil rights and having spent £14 billion of taxpayers' money, the Conservatives have the arrogance to say that they will offer no apology.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to apologise to electors in Labour areas for their levels of spending? Whether under rates, poll tax or council tax, they have imposed and will impose a great burden. Will the hon. Gentleman apologise for the failure of Labour authorities to collect rates or community charge, which has imposed a further burden, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out? Finally, will he apologise for the Labour party's failure to put in place any proposals for capping authorities that exceed those burdens?

Mr. Gould: I agree that it was the size of the poll tax bills which brought people on to the streets and which caused law-abiding citizens to be prepared to defy the law. The size of the bills meant that Conservative voters threatened to revolt and that Conservative councillors refused the whip. That was all true in Conservative-controlled areas. That was the reality of the poll tax, and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) deludes himself if he prefers to forget that piece of inconvenient history.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: Yes, but I will not give way to every tin-pot intervention.

Mr. Mans: Despite that comment, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He suggested that some of my hon. Friends were abandoning principles to which they had adhered for many years. Will he confirm that he has not abandoned any principles to which he has adhered?

Mr. Gould: I am in the very comfortable position of being able to give the hon. Gentleman exactly that assurance—[Interruption.] Oh yes. My position in principle is well known and I adhere to it.
Let us establish why some Conservative Members can reconcile with their consciences the fact that they will vote for the abolition of the poll tax. There are several reasons. They know that, despite the brave words of clause 100, the poll tax will live on. The bills will arrive again at the end of March next year. Just imagine the outrage and the anger of the millions of people who have been persuaded by the bravura performances of the Secretary of State and by the assurances given by the Prime Minister, including his statement that the poll tax had been abolished. They were inclined, silly people, to believe Ministers' statements. Imagine their anger and outrage when the bills arrive again at the end of March next year.
Imagine the despair of local government, although it was under no illusions. Local government will be faced yet again with the problem of collecting what the Prime Minister glibly announced some months ago was a virtually uncollectable tax of whose fairness the people could not be persuaded. Imagine the problems that local government now faces. How is local government to grapple with the problem?
I suspect that Conservative Members take comfort from the fact that the poll tax lives on, and they may take further comfort from the expert advice from so many quarters that the Government's timetable for abolishing the poll tax by 1 April 1993 will be extremely difficult to achieve. Conservative Members have the giddy prospect—how it must warm the cockles of their hearts—that the poll tax will survive for yet another year and perhaps even until 1994. They can salve their consciences by saying, "Yes, we are voting for a clause tonight, but of course nothing will really happen for at least a year or two."
Even if Conservative Members were compelled to face the reality that one way or another their beloved poll tax is due to go sooner or later—sooner if we have a Labour Government and later if we have a Tory Government—at least they can again delude themselves with the idea that, if only they can win a general election and implement the Bill, the poll tax will live on.
The 50 per cent. personal or head tax element of the council tax preserves the poll tax with all its mean features intact. The unfairness of the poll tax—the very problem that did for the poll tax, or so we are told by the Government—survives with the council tax. The complexity of the poll tax is also preserved. I would argue, as would many others, that the complexity of the council tax is likely to outstrip even that of the poll tax. As a direct consequence of the complexity of the council tax, the cost of administering it is fearful to imagine. Yet undoubtedly Conservative Members will gladly support the council tax because it will prove to be yet another burden for hated local government.
Another feature that the council tax will have in common with the poll tax is the register. We are told—although with less assurance tonight—that technically and lawfully there can be no register. But it is equally accepted that it might be necessary to have a list, and that if there is not a list local authorities might have to rely on the electoral register. So all the objections to the poll tax on civil rights grounds will survive.
Then there is the question of uncollectability—the other shot below the water that holed the poll tax. The council tax will also be uncollectable. Surely no one disputes that 7 million inquiries will have to be made to find out which are the single-person households. Indeed, more than 7 million inquiries will have to be made. Some 33 million inquiries will have to be made to find out which of those 33 million households are the 7 million single-person households. The information will have to be kept on record and updated day by day as people move from one address to another, change their status and so on. Uncollectability—my heavens, we have seen nothing yet. The council tax will be a monument to uncollectability. Undoubtedly, that too pleases the diehard supporters of the poll tax.
All the problems of the poll tax will remain and will be compounded by a set of new problems connected with an entirely new and untried property tax. The council tax will use an entirely new valuation basis—capital values. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) rightly described the mechanism for carrying out valuations as a Mickey-Mouse process which will cost about £2 per valuation. I always tell my friends to remember the next time that they are charged a large sum for a valuation to remember that it could be done for £2.
The valuation process will provoke a huge number of appeals just as all the other administrative problems of introducing the council tax come to fruition. The valuation process will depend on a banding system. It will do great damage to fairness between one region and another and one council tax payer and another. It is rightly feared and regretted by many Conservative Members who, unfortunately, did not have the courage to express their opinions in these debates.
When we put together the elements of the council tax, we find that the poll tax not merely lives on but lives on with even more horrific problems attached to it. I genuinely think—this is not an attempt at a debating point—that we face a disaster of even greater than poll tax proportions. We have evidence that that is the case. Conservative Members could scarcely bear to contemplate what was being done in their name. At one point during Report yesterday there was literally not one Back-Bench Member on the Conservative Benches. For a period this afternoon just two Conservative Back-Bench Members were present.
The Conservative party is introducing the legislation and Conservative Members had some obligation, however rudimentary, to Parliament and their constituents to understand a measure which their votes would force through the House. The truth is that Conservative Members chose to block their ears and close their eyes. They sleepwalked through the Bill. They refused to try to understand the disaster that was in preparation.
Conservative Members were culpable on the poll tax. Their mistake and their blind support produced that disaster. Even the Prime Minister sought refuge in the excuse that the measure had been bounced through. That was a pretty pathetic excuse from a member of the Cabinet. But it is now a pathetic excuse for all those Conservative Members who chose not to listen to the arguments and to pretend that this time, unlike last time, they could accept ministerial assurances that everything would be all right on the night. Their excuses ring hollow in the ears of millions of people who have been damaged by the poll tax.
Those excuses will not be listened to a second time. In all seriousness, Conservative Members have failed the House. They have failed in their duty and they have failed their constituents. It will be only justice if their constituents take their revenge.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on taking the Bill through Third Reading. There is a clear cleavage tonight, irrespective of where we stood on the community charge, to which I shall refer later. On one side we are offered a council tax which is a mixture of a property tax and a head tax. On the other side we are offered a return to a system


called fair rates. We do not know what is offered to us under the fair rates system. I have no doubt how the majority of the electorate in my constituency would vote, if they were given that choice. They do not want to return to a property system whereby large families who need larger houses and older people who want to keep their houses so that their children and grandchildren can visit them are penalised.
Some form of local government Bill has been introduced almost every year. For eight months I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment. This is yet another Bill. I am concerned that we should get it right in the long run, or put on the record where improvements can still be made either before or after a general election. But the last thing that we want is a rating system, which is what the Labour party wants.
In my view, the community charge was right in principle but was too high. I said that in February 1988. Three years later value added tax was increased and the community charge was reduced by £140. If we had left it at that, the community charge would have remained. But that is history and we must take up from where we are now.
I am still worried about the unfairness of the council tax to people in London and the south-east and areas where property prices are high. The Government have accepted the principle that there should be separate sets of bands for Wales and for Scotland, presumably because the prices of property are different there. However, the greatest variation in property prices is between the south of England and the north of England. People may say that it is difficult to know where to draw the line, but a line has been drawn down the Welsh marshes somewhere and along Hadrian's wall or some other such boundary.
The difference between property prices in the north and the south-east of England is not small. In London and the south-east property prices are 45 per cent. above the average. In the north property prices are 25 per cent. below the average. That is not a small difference. There is a great gulf between one and the other. Only 1 per cent. of properties in London and the south-east will be in the bottom band. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), 83 per cent. of properties will be in the top three bands. In the north few properties—only 4 per cent.—will be in the top three bands. In Greater London as a whole 31 per cent. of properties will be in the top three bands. It is a pity that the Government did not take on board then—I trust that they will do so at some time in the future—the fact that the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association has drawn up its own set of bands, which has made the situation clearer.
If the Department of the Environment contacts the Department of Health, it will find that four bands of property apply to doctors buying their surgeries, so the Government do not even need to use the London Boroughs Association scheme. It says here, "Department of Health"; is that not correct?

Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, it is.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: The Department of Health lists four regions of the country. I believe that it would make that list available to the Department of the Environment. The list starts with a factor of 97 for Cleveland, 106 for Avon, 116 for Buckingham and 130 for Harrow and Brent.

The Department of Health has already worked out the differences, so we need not send people around the country; we merely need to bicycle from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Health. I sometimes wonder whether one Department knows what another is doing, but I must not raise such questions tonight.
Many people will be shocked that we have not increased the single person's discount from 25 to 331 per cent. or to 50 per cent. I read in the newspapers that that was being negotiated. Presumably the Treasury put a stop to it. I only hope that when the recession ends and taxes pour in we shall be able to table an amendment to do that. In Brent it means that, according to my figures, 92 per cent. of single people will lose out an average of £131 each, which is quite a lot of money. In Brent, 18 per cent. of doubles will lose out and the remaining 82 per cent. will gain an average of £44.
In Brent, North, according to my figures, after the 25 per cent. discount 94 per cent. of single people will lose out and 24 per cent. of doubles. I wished to put that on record because, with all taxes or changes in taxation, those people who are better off as a result will say "Thank you very much" and forget about it and the others who do not benefit will remember and will look to the ballot box, although I trust that that will not happen in this case.
The present recession in London and the south-east is different from any recession since 1929. From 1979 to 1981 the recession affected the north and the midlands, but now it is affecting service industries here. Sainsbury recently revealed that London is the only area where sales of food have decreased.
It is not merely a question of the price of property, because we must take travel into account. Repairs to cars cost twice as much in London as outside. If one drives a long way to have one's car serviced one can save money, but it costs money to drive it there.
House repossessions must also be considered. Figures published yesterday show that the two greatest increases in unemployment were in London and the south-east—this year it has increased by 43·6 per cent. in Greater London and by 56·4 per cent. in the south-east.

Mr. Wilkinson: It has increased by more than 100 per cent. in my constituency.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who spoke on this subject last night, says that unemployment has increased by 100 per cent. in his constituency.
The Government must bear in mind the fact that we are debating Third Reading and that Conservative Members of Parliament would much prefer the Bill to anything that will be offered by the Labour party at any time. There is no doubt about that. It is not a case of salving our consciences; it is a plain fact.
However, at some stage, in another place or later on—whatever we say now, there will be another local government Bill next year—when the recession ends and more money is available, for goodness sake will the Government do something for London and the south-east and other high-priced property areas and do something about banding and single persons' discounts? Let them not wait three years this time. Let it be done then.
Tonight I shall vote with the Government, because I do not want the return of a total rating system. I should have


preferred the community charge to remain, but it has gone and I accept that. We have got the Bill to Third Reading and hon. Members who served in Committee have done quite well, but we must remember regional banding and an increase in the personal discount if the measure is to become popular rather than merely being a palliative.

Mr. Bellotti: When the Secretary of State introduced the debate on Third Reading, we were entertained to a speech commensurate with an after-dinner speech, which is where the Secretary of State spent most of the time while the Committee was considering details of the Bill. That gave the Minister of State a difficult task. A little more than 12 months ago he said:
Taxes on people's homes are unfair. Property values bear little relation to people's ability to pay.
From that standpoint it was a difficult task for the Secretary of State to pilot the Bill through Committee and on to Report and Third Reading. On occasions, scrutiny of the Bill was almost non-existent.
The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) has demonstrated two key areas which the Committee did not consider in the necessary detail: banding and discounts. If the Committee and the House, on Report, had had the opportunity to explore those in detail, there would have been a great deal of support for his point of view.
Perhaps the Government do not believe that council tax bills will ever be brought into being in this form in 1993. Perhaps that is why they did not deem it necessary to go into detail in Committee. However, we must seriously consider the possibility that the Bill will be brought into being. At this late hour I want to join those hon. Members who would appeal for some rethinking.
The misery, chaos and cost caused by the poll tax, which so many hon. Members from both sides of the House have shared during these debates, will continue with the council tax, unless we are careful. The council tax is not fair and will not be efficient.
First, it is not fair. Surely it is wrong that the richest people, living in mansions, will pay only three times what the poorest people in the smallest flats will be asked to pay. That differential is not enough. Surely there are not enough bands.
That will put the burden on to the least well-off and protect the rich. If there were more bands, the burden would be spread more fairly.
The bands will mean that those on low and average incomes in high property value areas will face the largest bills. Those are the very people in London and the south-east to whom many hon. Members have referred in Committee and during this debate.
People living in tied property will face bills quite out of proportion to their incomes, especially if the property is in the inner city. That will affect ministers of religion, tenant farmers in rural areas, and people who rent and gain no benefit from the capital value of the property that they occupy. Private tenants lost heavily when the poll tax was introduced and stand to lose heavily again under the council tax.
The tax will also create a great deal of resentment. The Government propose to exempt students, but not all students will pay nothing. As we demonstrated in

Committee and on Third Reading, many students who live in multi-occupancy properties will be forced by landlords to contribute directly or indirectly to the cost of the property tax. The landlord will not just pay the council tax without passing it on to those occupying the property.
We have received professional advice from many quarters to the effect that the council tax will not be in place. I am pleased to say that, since I have had responsibility for local government finance for my party, the professionals whom I have encouraged to help me in my task have been extremely helpful. For example, the Magistrates Association says:
The deep concern felt by the magistracy in respect of their involvement in the liability order stage of enforcement of the community charge…is…now regretfully repeated in respect of the proposed council tax.
That organisation's views have been made well known to Ministers:
We have put forward our views to Ministers on many occasions and our concerns that the procedure brings the magistracy into disrepute.
Other professional bodies say that the council tax is wrong and gives them cause for concern. Surveyors who have been asked to value property have said that. For example, Mr. James Allen of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland says:
We greatly fear that the Bill as it now stands will result in an unworkable tax. This will be clearly against the public interest.
He goes on:
The RICS is particularly concerned at the failure to legislate for a credible system of appeals.
The Government ignore all the professional advice at their peril.
The valuation process is imprecise. On Monday morning of this week the first radio programme I heard, at 7.30, was on Radio Sussex. The interviewer went out with a Mr. Dixon of Enever, estate agents in Brighton, which has been awarded a contract to value 30,000 homes in Brighton. While we are still debating the valuation process and trying to influence the Minister, the Government might have shown a little courtesy by not awarding contracts until after Third Reading.
In that radio programme, the interviewer went round with the estate agent and asked, in effect, "How would you value this property?" The agent replied, "This is a block of flats. I am not able to enter any of the flats. I shall assume that they are all roughly the same size and put them all in band B." They proceeded down the road and the interviewer said, "We are now outside a large detached house. How would you value that?" Mr. Dixon replied, "I would say that this property is in the top band or the one next to it. I shall put it into the band next to the top because that will help to reduce the number of appeals that might come forward."
The programme continued in that vein and it was fascinating. I thought for a moment that I was listening to a BBC comedy, but it was, in reality, a serious attempt to explain to listeners how the valuation process would work. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that it was possible for valuations to be done for £2 per property. In the radio programme, it was suggested that an agent who knew the area well would not even need to leave his office to value property. Could there be a more ludicrous proposition for valuing property?
Clause 5 gives power to the Secretary of State to continue to cap local authorities and alter their budgets. That capping aspect received little attention in Committee


and on Report, although it is an extremely serious matter. Those powers relate to a local authority's SSA. Hon. Members have demonstrated many times that the whole SSA system has brought local government finance into disrepute.
Eastbourne borough council sent a letter to the Department of the Environment referring to its SSA and asking for details of additional costs. Before the powers in clause 5 are implemented. the Government should be honest and answer such questions. The letter simply asked for details of the costs of implementing the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Food Safety Act 1990, short-term leases and the code and guidance on homelessness. The Government must demonstrate that questions such as those will be answered before the capping powers are implemented.
In Committee, the Government were unable to give answers. At this stage of the Bill, it is possible for me to give the answers that the Government gave to Eastbourne borough council. The Department of the Environment responded as follows:
It is the Department's practice to make an estimate of the cost to local authorities of new policy initiatives which are introduced. That estimate is one of the factors which Ministers take into account when deciding what provisions to make each year for total local authority spending".
Thus far in the letter there would be no objection to the powers taken, but it continues:
However, that level of provision is not determined simply by adding up a list of estimated costs for existing services and new initiatives. Ministers take into account a number of broad factors such as the scope for efficiency savings and the removal of wasteful expenditure, and what the country can afford generally. The annual settlement represents Ministers' overall judgment, taken in the light of these various factors; it is not constructed by making separate provision for specific items.
So the Government are taking powers to cap local authorities and restrict their budgets, but not taking into account the additional responsibilities which they intend to give local authorities. It is ludicrous that the Bill will place powers on local authorities without the Government estimating the costs involved.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for agreeing, an hour or so ago, to meet my colleagues in Eastbourne. I hope that he will be prepared to meet colleagues throughout the country to discuss how those powers may affect local people.
I wish to discuss a matter that arose on Report, which we were unable to consider properly in Committee—the effect of discounts. I invited the Minister of State to explain, when he wound up on Report, why the 25 per cent. discount should not be increased to 40 per cent. I gave a series of statistics, one of which was Government based, from three authorities, illustrating why the discount should be 40 per cent. It is because the average income for a single-person household is 60 per cent. of the average income for a two-person household. Although I asked the Minister of State to deal with that issue in his response on Report, he singularly failed to do so. Will the Minister who replies to Third Reading reply to that important point? Opposition Members are aware of the fact that, given an opportunity to support an amendment that we tabled on Report to increase the discount from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent., a reasonable number of Conservative Back Benchers would do so. If the Government want to argue for a 25 per cent. discount, they must be prepared to give justifiable reasons for doing so. Not to deal with the issue simply

because they are aware that several Conservative Back Benchers and Opposition Members hold a different view is irresponsible.
The Government do not intend to implement the council tax proposals in their entirety. I predict that they will be substantially amended first. At Committee stage the Government took every opportunity to dodge key issues such as banding and discounts and they do the House a disservice by continuing in that vein.

Sir Michael Neubert: After the engaging and entertaining clash of Titans at the outset of the debate and two contributions by veteran protagonists, I rise more modestly to regret that the Bill should receive a Third Reading with clauses 17 and 83 unamended and intact. My interest in the Bill arises from my role as parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders. As the clauses deal with the completion of new dwellings, the connection is obvious and topical.
The housing market is currently grappling with the effects of recession, the latest development of which is the growing number of repossessions and repossessed houses being sold at auction at knock-down prices. That, in turn, creates surplus capacity in the market, reduces the need for new building and puts many smaller firms represented in the federation up against the wall. Although the prospects are much brighter, particularly as a result of yesterday's announcement of £7·5 billion next year for housing, some dark winter months lie ahead. That £7·5 billion is exactly the amount raised by tobacco tax, a curious illustration of the principle of quid pro quo.
I shall talk on one point of principle. The principle asserted is that no new housing should attract a charge until it is occupied. The relief of six months that has been granted may seem generous, but it certainly is not in today's circumstances, where we have a sluggish market with houses regrettably remaining unsold for perhaps years rather than months. A builder cannot even let a property that he has built for sale without forfeiting his rights to reclaim VAT, so he is called on to pay tax on a property from which he derives no personal income or residential benefit. The property may receive some services such as street lighting or police protection, but it is a small proportion of the full benefits that a council tax payer can expect to enjoy once he occupies the property.
In the present desperate state of the market it is most unwelcome and unreasonable for the builder, especially the small builder, to have to meet that extra cost. Therefore, I am astonished at the attitude of the Labour party as expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on clause 83, when he said in Committee that the provision would
fulfil an important function by stopping builders leaving small parts of buildings unfinished in order to avoid local taxation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 November 1991; c. 501.]
The idea that builders are deliberately trying to prevent houses from being sold is simply absurd. The average small builder has to provide money up front, purchase the land, order materials and pay the wages, so needs to have a regular turnover of build and sell to survive. Where else can he get his money? He has to borrow from banks which, with today's high interest rates, obviously puts him under tremendous pressure.

Mr. Maxton: That same argument could be advanced for people who, as a result of their jobs, have had to move house, cannot sell their existing house, on which they have a mortgage, and also have a bridging loan to buy their new property. After six months they will have to pay 50 per cent. of the tax on the house that is left empty. Why should a builder be exempt from paying that tax when someone else in the same position is not?

Sir Michael Neubert: As I shall explain, we are dealing with one of the nation's most vital industries, the construction industry. An individual has his own responsibilities and can make his own judgment; a builder has to build and sell houses to make his livelihood and to survive. He must be there ready to build houses when there is an economic upturn and a demand for more houses. That is the difference between the individual and the small builder who is in business.
The provision's origin goes back to the bad old days of the Wilson years and the notorious scandal of Centre Point. There is all the difference in the world between a wealthy property speculator who leaves a London landmark empty for years, confident in the knowledge that in a rising market he will eventually recover his extended costs, and today's depressed housing market in which small builders literally have to fight to survive. I am astonished that the Labour party does not recognise the plight of the small business man.
It is unfair to penalise small businesses when they are already hard pressed. I ask the Minister to introduce a provision temporarily to waive the application of this clause in the circumstances. That would enable the Minister by statutory instrument and at his discretion to alter the position if he felt that that was genuinely needed. This small but significant impost on builders gravely irks them.
A further question not discussed in Committee concerns sheltered housing complexes where traditionally and typically there are a number of units with common facilities such as a communal dining room and the all-important presence of a warden. Until that warden is in place and the communal facilities become available, no one takes up occupation of the units, but they might be in different stages of construction and would probably be charged under the council tax proposals.
So much for the principle; the practice I will leave for another occasion when there is more time. I acknowledge that this is a small matter, but what I have said represents a cry from the heart of one of the most important industries in this country—the construction industry, which feels the first effects of a recession, bears the brunt of it and needs to recover to encourage an upturn throughout the economy. My right hon. Friends are planning a package of proposals which we are told will be announced tomorrow. When doing so they might consider this as one of a small number of measures which might help to stimulate and sustain the housing market at this difficult time.
The British sense of fair play dictates that we do not hit a man when he is down. Builders feel that they deserve special consideration at this time. I intend to emulate them by sitting down myself—and hoping to rise again.

Mrs. Fyfe: I was amazed to hear the Secretary of State complain about the lack of Opposition Members in the Chamber. The sheer brass neck of people like him never ceases to surprise me. He did not bother to defend the council tax in Committee. Tonight, after offering us the sort of speech which is the delight of Tory party conferences—it was the sort aimed at impressing them but which makes no impact here—he was off again. His contribution struck me as about as substantial as the petals on a poppy—one brief shake by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and the petals fell off, and the right hon. Gentleman had departed again.
Conservative Members have a nerve saying that we hit the vulnerable members of the community and attack the least privileged. They are the people who brought in the poll tax in the first place, and who brought in the heartless social security laws and much else besides. They should examine their own record of the past 13 years.
Now the Conservatives want us to congratulate them on ending the poll tax. Not a word of apology or repentance have they uttered, not an expression of regret to the people of Scotland who had the poll tax foisted on them a year before England and Wales.
I do not blame individuals for changing their minds about Government policy; we are all entitled to change our views in the light of experience. But when someone changes his mind he can reasonably be expected to explain what caused that change of mind and to apologise for any harm that he may have done. An enormous amount of harm was done by the poll tax, yet not a word of apology or explanation have we heard from the Secretary of State or any of his colleagues.
It may not be suspicious when one person changes his mind, but the virtual unanimity throughout the Tory party is certainly suspect. It is as if its members had a collective mind—with one or two exceptions who have consistently stuck to their point of view. There is no sincerity in that change of mind or repentance for the harm done.
In his time, the Secretary of State attacked the poll tax, pointing out correctly that it was wrong that a duke and a dustman should pay the same. Astonishingly, we heard not a word tonight in defence of the main point of the council tax—band H will pay only three times what band A pays. If the Secretary of State were here now, I would ask him whether he was not embarrassed to send himself, a wealthy man, a bill for a mere three times what the occupants of modest dwellings will pay anywhere in England.
Government Members talk about rising unemployment in the south-east. As a Member for a constituency with a continuing high level of unemployment, I sympathise with the plight of people thrown into unemployment in London and the south-east. In Scotland, we have seen the effects on our own constituents. We know from our own history what it is like, and we sympathise with the plight of these people. But I will never forget how uninterested those Tory Members were in our plight or how they created unemployment as a weapon in their struggle against inflation and told us that it was a price worth paying. I shall never forget that as long as I live.
The council tax will not be welcomed in the country. At best it will get a grudging acceptance, in the way that people prefer a decayed tooth to one with an abscess. The Government are not bringing in a just and fair tax to


replace the poll tax: they are merely bringing in one that they hope will allay the fears of Tory Members in marginal seats. They have refused to listen to the people, particularly the people in Scotland. They have changed their mind only because they feared the people's verdict if they stuck to the poll tax. Now they are hoping that the people have very short memories. I think that they will find that the people have not.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Barking, which I think is a very suitable seat for him to hold, and I thought that it was one of the greatest pieces of hypocrisy that I had ever heard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dagenham."] Dagenham? Well, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was barking anyway. The contribution of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) was even more barking.
I find it extraordinary that the Labour party stood in the 1974 election, the 1979 election and the 1983 election on a platform to introduce this tax, and now Labour Members are against it. I find it amazingly hypocritical that they should be expressing its difficulties and complications when it was merely got out by the civil servants from the red file and handed to the Secretary of State for the Environment as a replacement for what I think was a sensible tax—a standard tax for each citizen for a licence to use local authority services—which came to be known as the poll tax.
I say again that nobody objected. Nobody objects to a standard price for a television set, or a motor car, or house insurance, or a loaf of bread or anything else. So what is wrong with a standard price to be paid by each citizen for local authority services? We should remember too that many people do not enjoy or use these services.
I come back to the hypocrisy of the Opposition. If inability to pay is the basis of their complaints about the community charge, why are they so interested in the concept that, if the value of one's home, which one may have owned for two years, or 10 years, or 70 years, and which may be in Dagenham, or Barking, or London, or Scotland, or Stornoway, or anywhere else, happens to alter, one should be charged on the assumption that one is rich thereby, because one's home is worth more? One cannot get rid of one's home. One can no more get rid of one's home than one can take off one's clothes in the Chamber of the House of Commons. [Interruption.] It is the modesty of Opposition Members and their ugliness that prevents them from doing this. It is important that people should not be taxed for beloved local authority services on the basis of a capital asset which they cannot realise, the value of which is assessed by some accountant and over which they have no control.
Unfortunately. on Report, we did not reach part II, which applies to Scotland. One of the characteristics of the Bill is that it uses algebraic formulae. I am sure that Opposition Members have studied algebra. That is demonstrated by their grasp and illustration of the benefits of comprehensive education—that is, those who did not go to public school. But I have never met anyone who uses algebra, and the Bill is algebraic.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister one or two simple questions. Clause 72(2) says:
In this Part, 'dwelling'…means any lands and heritages".

Clause 73(4) refers to "any lands and heritages". The Scottish National Farmers Union will be interested to know whether that means that land and farm buildings will be taxed. I should like my hon. Friend to ensure that the absurd Labour party proposals to do so are not part of the Bill's intention.

Mr. George Howarth: Where is the algebra in that?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: There is plenty of algebra. Clause 78 has the formula A/D. Hon. Members should try it. D equals the number of days in the year. There is also the leap year. It is important that my hon. Friend the Minister should deal with that point.
There is another matter which I do not understand and with which I should like my hon. Friend to deal. This is a most complicated piece of legislation to introduce a simple concept. It talks about "resident owners". A resident owner is an owner in residence. This is a day-by-day Bill. For three and a half days in the week, I am resident in a house in London of which I am an owner, and for three and a half days in the week I am resident in my house in Scotland of which I am an owner. When I am not there, it is a single-person residence, and when I am here, I am in a single-person residence.
I want the Minister to study that carefully, because the Bill is subject to all sorts of orders and preparations. The Secretary of State can make the day longer or shorter and houses and residences different. I want to know what that means. I want to know whether it means that, if I am not resident in the house that I own, that day, even if it continues as the day that it started as—[Interruption.] The Bill says that the day shall be presumed to continue as it started. Very well. I want to know whether, if on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday I am not resident in my Scottish house and it becomes a single-person dwelling, account will be taken of that fact for the purpose of calculating what I have to pay.
I have never seen legislation drafted worse than this, more complicated, or more open to doubt. However, one thing about it is certain: it is the legislation on which Labour Members fought the last three elections, and is what they wanted—but now they are against it. That shows that Labour Members are hypocrites.
I want the Minister to explain to me simply, because I am a simple person—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and cannot understand this, what is meant by references to resident occupation and day-by-day occupation, and to the other matters that I raised. Although many concepts are capable of variation by Secretaries of State—perhaps including, God help us, but many centuries after I am dead, Labour Secretaries of State—it is important that my hon. Friend the Minister should spell it out that farm land is not included in the description "lands and heritages" and the meaning of the references to residence and daily residence.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Bill seeks to abolish the poll tax in 15 months' time and to introduce a deeply flawed property-based replacement. As was predicted, the poll tax perished under the weight of those who did not pay it. Even the Prime Minister admitted to Tory Back Benchers shortly after his election as party leader that the tax was unenforceable.
Even since then, the problem has grown much worse. On 4 December, the Government admitted that, although by 30 September last year 47 per cent. of the poll tax due in shire counties was collected, by the same date this year the figure was down to 40 per cent. In metropolitan districts, it fell from 44 per cent. to 38 per cent.; in outer-London boroughs, from 44 per cent. to 36 per cent.; and in inner-London boroughs, from 34 per cent. to 28 per cent. I understand that collection in Scotland has fallen from 31 per cent. to 26 per cent. Clearly the poll tax has become more difficult to implement and to enforce as time has gone by.
The Audit Commission acknowledged that in its evidence to the Government earlier this year, when it advised them not to pursue small amounts—such as the 20 per cent. payments on which there was substantial debate earlier. In its further evidence of a fortnight ago, the commission said that district auditors throughout the country recognised that
Collection seems more difficult in relatively deprived areas and areas with a large number of charge payers on benefit.
Strathclyde estimates that 70 per cent. of all defaulters are those who are liable for 20 per cent. payments. The tragedy is—as I told the House last Thursday—that, according to the Glasgow Evening Times, civil war broke out over poindings in the Springburn district of Glasgow, which is one of the poorest boroughs in western Europe. The Bill promotes and extends for another 15 months the mayhem of trying to impose on poor people throughout the country those same enforcement procedures.
I tried to exorcise from the Bill poindings, the use of bailiffs, distraint in England and Wales, and imprisonment. Unfortunately, the relevant clauses of the Bill were not reached on Report.
Clause 100 abolishes the poll tax, but not for 15 months, so it is not dead and buried. It will stay to haunt the Government right up to the general election. They think that the poll tax has gone away, but I have statistics from the Home Office showing that, to 3 September, 8,023,621 had been summonsed over the poll tax. When I ask Ministers how that compares with the last five years of rate collection, they tell me that the statistics were never collected. I know why they were not collected. A total of 23,500 hours of court time were involved; 195,845 people turned up in court to explain why they could not afford to pay their poll tax.
Under the poll tax legislation—and for a further year under the provisions of this Bill—the vast majority are being forced to choose between paying for food, fuel and clothing for their children, and going into debt to pay their poll tax. Millions have chosen not to go into debt.
Matters will get worse. Enforcement will be impossible, and all the options will drift away like sand. We have heard about attachment of earnings and attachment of benefits. In its advice to district auditors, the Audit Commission said that only 15 per cent. of those who had been sent requests for information with liability orders gave local authorities that information. Tens of thousands are suffering deductions from their benefits, but, when it comes to committal proceedings, the Audit Commission notes:
There have been examples where the police are reluctant to act.

That will not improve the Government's position in the weeks and the months ahead.
I tabled an amendment to delete schedules 4, 7 and 8. It was selected, but, unfortunately, we did not reach it on Report. I wanted to get rid of the enforcement procedures that seek to imprison people who cannot pay the poll tax—the mediaeval barbarity of imprisonment for civil debt.
I have often given the House individual examples. I have often asked Ministers—including the one who will wind up today's debate—why the Bill perpetuates the difference between the law in Scotland and that in England and Wales. In the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, the Government abolished imprisonment for civil debt; in England and Wales, 55 local authorities have sought to imprison some 4,000 people, of whom 156 have been sentenced and 115 have served time.
We were told that that would never happen to people who could not afford to pay the poll tax, but, under the Bill, it will continue to happen for at least another 15 months. In Bristol, 69-year-old pensioner Tony Whitfield was given a 60-day sentence. In Stroud, Maria Jones—who was eight months pregnant—offered to pay £5 a week out of her £42-a-week benefit; she was given a two-month sentence. In Basildon, a 54-year-old grandmother of eight, Sylvia McGilvray, was given a 90-day sentence. In Thanet, Ruby Haddow, a mother of three with no income, was sentenced to 14 days.
Last week, 70-year-old Iris Robbins, whose only income was a state pension, was sentenced to 14 days in Holloway prison. In Tunbridge Wells, Dora Coull, a pensioner and grandmother, was sentenced to a term in Holloway. In Portsmouth, David Shute—a father of five who had been made redundant—received a 28-day sentence. In Caerphilly, 79-year-old Tommy Hopkins, an ex-miner, and County Councillor Ray Davies received sentences. In Bradford, Steve Kershaw received a 14-day sentence, although he was receiving invalidity benefit; and, in Knowsley, 73-year-old Bill Jones—a diabetic with one leg, confined to a wheelchair—was sentenced to a term in Walton prison, along with my hon. Friend and comrade the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields).
Ron Cassidy, from Northumberland, was put in Durham maximum security prison for 90 days, although he owed only £62: he was given a day's sentence for every 69p that he owed. The Bill will ensure that those enforcement procedures are continued for another 15 months.

Mr. Barry Porter: Good.

Mr. Nellist: The hon. Gentleman may say, "Good"; but already 31 unemployed people, three people in receipt of invalidity benefit and 15 pensioners have been put away because they could not pay the poll tax. The council tax legislation will continue those enforcement procedures.
This Bill should be defeated tonight. The Government ought to have introduced 100 per cent. rebates immediately, and restored the level of rate support grant that existed in 1979, when the Conservative Government were first elected after a period of Labour rule. They ought to have reduced the level of local taxation, whatever version they chose to apply.
The Bill's immediate task, however, should be to halt the prosecution of millions of people—many of them pensioners, many receiving invalidity benefit and many with no income of any kind. I know that the Minister will


refuse to do it, but an amnesty should have been declared. I warn the House that an amnesty will have to be declared. As somebody once said,
'twere well
It were done quickly.

Mr. John Marshall: It is always interesting to speak after the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). The only trouble is that there will be few more opportunities to do so. When he calls for an amnesty for law breakers, it is a condemnation of what he and other hon. Members have done. It is wrong that law makers should ever become law breakers. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East is part of a campaign that could be summarised as follows: can pay, won't pay. Both the hon. Gentleman and his friends could easily have paid the community charge. They chose not to do so. They chose to rob their local authorities of much-needed cash.
This has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) claimed that he is a model of consistency. I remind him that in 1983 and 1987 the Labour party campaigned for one-sided nuclear disarmament. I remind him, too, that as late as 1989 the Labour leader of the European Parliament was an opponent of British membership of the Community. The Labour party never has been consistent and never will be.
Last night the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) spoke about the impact of the council tax upon Barnet. When he was asked what the impact of his proposals would be upon Barnet, he offered this memorable sentence:
One simply cannot pluck figures out of the air."—[Official Report, 16 December 1991: Vol. 33, c. 95.]
He was willing to shed crocodile tears but he was unwilling to tell the people of Barnet what his proposals would mean for them. The reason is that the Labour party has never cared a tinker's cuss for the ratepayers, council tax payers or community charge payers of Barnet. It regards the people of Barnet and of other London boroughs as people to be exploited by very high taxes and very high charges. The people about whom he spoke yesterday are those upon whom he would seek to impose a 59 per cent. tax in the first Labour Budget.
My point regarding the impact of the council tax on London and Barnet is that 85 per cent. of future expenditure by local authorities will be financed by Government grant. It is essential that the level of Government grant should reflect the needs of London and London's commitments rather than the number of houses in London in the top two bands.
On Second Reading I asked the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to look at the London Regional Transport anomaly in so far as it affected the outer London boroughs. I told him that it would be a touchstone of his sincerity, in that it would show whether he was committed to the needs of Barnet and, indeed, of Enfield. My hon. Friend showed that he had dealt with that anomaly when he said that the rate support grant would cover 1992–93. He was fair to the people of Barnet. As my hon. Friend has stood by the people of outer London, it would be wrong of me if I did not stand by him tonight. He stood by us; it would be churlish of us not to support him this evening.
A choice faces the people of Barnet and outer London. Do they support the Liberal party's scheme, whose figures

are so suspect that the boffin behind it decided to resign? Do they support the Labour party's scheme, where the figures are so horrific that the hon. Member for Brightside said that he could not pluck them out of the air and publicise them? He knew that they were so horrible that they would lose the Labour party votes at the next election. Or should the people of Barnet and outer London support the scheme of my right hon. and hon. Friends? I do not claim that the council tax is perfect, but it is preferable to the alternatives that have been put forward by the Opposition parties.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall deal not with the comments of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), but with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East is an honourable friend. I have great respect for someone who has the courage of his convictions. The House owes him a debt for standing up for them.
I am a reluctant law breaker—[Interruption.] Goldilocks on the Government Front Bench should listen; it is not really pantomime time. The poindings and warrant sales in Scotland will continue, although we sought to remove that provision from the Bill. Three million warrants have been issued. It has been alleged that people in the Scottish National party and others precipitated a great wave of law breaking in Scotland, but the figures show that the momentum will continue as long as the poll tax legislation remains on the statute book.
I wish to tell the House what happens under poinding. My local authority had several options. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and others to suggest that local authorities do not have options. A local authority has various means available to it to get people to pay under diligence. My local authority tried to arrest bank accounts and to have poinding. Having lost cases in the sheriff courts, and because it had the resources to do so, it appealed. That probably cost £30,000, such was the tenacity of that Labour council.
I have pleaded here with Labour Members, and some honourable exceptions have stood up and been counted on this issue. Let us not kid ourselves that resentment about the poll tax does not continue, even though clause 100 abolishes it. If this situation continues, people will not respect the law.
It is all very well for the Prime Minister and others to say that if one is a law maker, one cannot be a law breaker, but what did the Prime Minister do at Maastricht? He opted out. The difference here is that these folk cannot opt out of the strictures of the poll tax. They cannot use the big battalion. They have to defend themselves from the actions of sheriff officers and so on. People in Scotland will continue to oppose the poll tax as long as the Government try, through local authorities, to raise local revenue by such an unfair means.

Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and those of my hon. Friends who served night after night, on clause after clause, in Committee—not, like Banquo's ghost, viewing it from the gallery occasionally just after 10 o'clock, but every night looking at the detail of the Bill, understanding


it in a way that we would have been delighted to explain to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) had we had the opportunity.
I apologise to the Disney Corporation for having called this tax a Mickey-Mouse valuation system. The difference between Mickey Mouse and this system is that Mickey Mouse brings pleasure to millions of children and great benefit to the world as a whole, whereas the Bill brings misery and unfairness to millions of people.
I apologise to the makers of KitKat for the comparison which I made in terms of the cheapest valuation. At least KitKats are nourishing and provide value for money—which 20p valuations on properties certainly do not.
We have a banding system which is nonsense. We have a valuation process which is cheap and nasty. We also have a regional banding disparity. The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) would have done better to contribute to the debate on that matter last night than on Third Reading, when it is all past and gone.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) asked what our proposals would mean in the borough of Barnet. Instead of an average of £617—the Government's figure for properties in Barnet—our proposals would mean an average of £456. That would be a clear saving, even in a borough where nearly 50 per cent. of households will be in the highest bands. I hope that he will return to his borough and tell the people exactly what the Government's proposals will mean. They will not mean fairness for those in inner or outer London or for those living elsewhere in the south-east—they will mean deliberate discrimination and a refusal to protect people whose properties are falling in price although their property valuation will be based on the figures for last April. In other words, their properties will he in a higher band than the price of their property warrants 12 months after the given date for the valuation process.
The process is nonsense. It means valuations based on last April's figures, although property prices in London and the south-east are judged to have dropped by 10 per cent. this year alone. It is an absolute outrage and if Conservative hon. Members with constituencies in London and the south-east were representing their constituents properly, they would have said so. The people who cost us as a nation £14 billion in implementing the poll tax are also pushing through this legislation on a guillotine motion. They are the people who refused to listen to the argument about the unfairness of a discount which rewards a millionaire and which can reduce the amount that someone pays merely because he lives alone to an amount below that to be paid by a couple who happen to live in a much cheaper house and in the band below.
The system will cause disquiet and unfairness. People outside the House would learn that if the Conservatives were to win the general election, but they will not win because people will hear of the way in which their properties will be valued and learn about the in-flight valuation. They will see a hot air balloon floating over their gardens and taking photographs. They will ring the local police and ask, "Is this the new head of MI5, or am I being supervised by Big Brother?" The answer will be, "Of course you are. We are checking to see whether there is an extension on the back of your house. Please put the

number of your house in big letters on your back lawn or on your roof so we can be sure we don't get the wrong house." There will be in-flight, Mickey-Mouse valuations and discounts which will cost £780 million to implement.
Only one amendment was accepted in Committee and it attached to the allowance of councillors any tax due under the new council tax proposals. We proposed it and it will wipe out the whole of the Secretary of State's speeech at this year's party conference. His spech predicated that after 1993 councillors would not be able to vote unless they paid their tax. Our amendment ensures that they will have paid their tax and will have a right to vote, so we have wiped out his vitriolic nonsense—the great Tarzan speech which brought the conference to its feet and which was the restoration of the prodigal son. That was what it was all about. It was nonsense and we knew it, but the BBC dutifully reported it, although it has not reported the passage of the Bill.
The final throw is fairness. Is the tax fair? In one of his three contributions to the debate, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross summed it up yesterday when he recalled his childhood. He said:
Nanny would say, 'Life is not fair, laddie.'"—[Official Report, 16 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 50]
Some of us believed that we got rid of nanny last November, but no, here she is again. Nanny is watching us all and nanny said that the Britain of the 1990s would be unfair and the Secretary of State—whether he likes it or not—is carrying out nanny's wishes.
The tax is unfair and unworkable and it will be rejected by the British people because it will never be implemented. It will be rejected as the Government will be rejected at the general election. Our fair rates proposals will bring equity and justice and will be implemented as soon as possible after the general election.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was his usual good-humoured self, as he was throughout the Committee, although I thought that at one point he was in danger of being carried away by the heat of his own rhetoric, just like a hot air balloon.
We heard an excellent speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who rightly condemned Labour's proposals for a rating system. I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) that the council tax will not apply to farm land. I will study his other points with great care and interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) made some detailed points. I will try to get to them, but I hope that he will excuse me if I do not manage to reach them in the time available. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), in a splendid speech, reminded the House that law makers cannot be law breakers.
I had heard before much of the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), although not always in the same order. He was supported by the massed and serried ranks of the Labour party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Did you count them?"] Yes, I can count up to that number. I refer to two of them—the hon. Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I must record that the hon. Lady was a most assiduous member of the Committee. I do not wish to be


churlish, but I read in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times that she does not yet have an office. I am sure that that had nothing to do with her attendance and I hope that the Labour Whips have noted the point.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) reminded us of the fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition. He rightly referred to the whole question of the control of local authority expenditure. The hon. Member for Dagenham said in Committee:
we…propose to double the tax base under the control of local authorities by restoring to their control the setting of the business rate".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 November 1991: c. 9.]
There has never been an announcement that means so much bad news for Scottish business rate payers and for Scottish companies. By the next financial year, the Government will have provided £330 million for Scottish business to move towards a level playing field on business rates. In one move, the Labour party will take away that advantage to Scottish business.
In Committee, the Labour party confirmed that it will have no controls over local authority expenditure. That is without precedent, at least in Scotland. No Government in Scotland since 1929 have taken that view. It was not the view taken by the Labour Government of 1945–50 or by the previous Labour Government.
The message that has come through is absolutely clear. It is the message that the policies of the Lambeths, the Liverpools and the Lothians of the land can be applied everywhere with no controls on behalf of the taxpayer, of the business rate payer or of the council tax payer. That was Labour's message throughout the Committee stage. Its message to local government is, "Spend comrades, spend comrades. spend comrades."
The Labour party proposes a "fair rates" system. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said that the fair rates tax system would be introduced on 1 April 1993, and that in the first instance it would be——

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: No, because I do not have time.
The hon. Gentleman said that the system would be the old rating system, but that it would be amended thereafter, and he also said that that was the only way in which the system could be introduced. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no way in which the hon. Member for Dagenham can introduce the system south of the border.

Mr. Maxton: Why?

Mr. Stewart: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. His system will be on the basis of a revaluation in 1985. It cannot be done in England.
I commend the Bill to the House. It is a reasonable and practical Bill based on pragmatism and fairness. The Labour party wants to retreat to the rates. In its eagerness for an envy tax, it has abdicated its responsibility for responsible local government.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 237.

Division No. 31]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Alexander, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael





Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Evennett, David


Amess, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Favell, Tony


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Field. Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkins, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth. Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bellingham, Henry
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
French, Douglas


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, Sir George


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gill, Christopher


Body. Sir Richard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn. Dr Sir Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boswell, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottom ley. Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gorst, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowis. John
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory. Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grist. Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Ground, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Hague, William


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill. John
Hannam, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves. Ken (Hyndburn)


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Hay ward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark. Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hill. James


Colvin, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cran, James
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis. David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irving, Sir Charles


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Janman, Tim


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Dunn, Bob
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dykes. Hugh
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Eggar, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Emery, Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kilfedder, James






King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Portillo, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Price, Sir David


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knowles, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Knox, David
Redwood, John


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Latham, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Rost, Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lord, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sayeed, Jonathan


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, David (Dover)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Maclean, David
Shelton, Sir William


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Major, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mans, Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Speed, Keith


Marlow, Tony
Speller, Tony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Miller, Sir Hal
Stokes, Sir John


Mills, Iain
Sumberg, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Monro, Sir Hector
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thorne, Neil


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mudd, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Norris, Steve
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Page, Richard
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Walters, Sir Dennis


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Ward, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen





Wheeler, Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wiggin, Jerry
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. David Lightbown and


Wood, Timothy
 Mr. John M. Taylor.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Edwards, Huw


Allen, Graham
Enright, Derek


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fatchett, Derek


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Faulds, Andrew


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flannery, Martin


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Derek


Battle, John
Foulkes, George


Beckett, Margaret
Fraser, John


Beith, A. J.
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart
Galbraith, Sam


Bellotti, David
Galloway, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Benton, Joseph
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grocott, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Canavan, Dennis
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Home Robertson, John


Carr, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Cartwright, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Geraint


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Cox, Tom
Johnston, Sir Russell


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles


Cunningham, Dr John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Darling, Alistair
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lambie, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lamond, James


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Livingstone, Ken


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livsey, Richard


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eadie, Alexander
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Eastham, Ken
McAllion, John






McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey


Macdonald, Calum A.
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McFall, John
Rogers, Allan


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rooker, Jeff


McKelvey, William
Rooney, Terence


McLeish, Henry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


McMaster, Gordon
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Salmond, Alex


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheerman. Barry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sillars, Jim


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie. Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steel. Rt Hon Sir David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Straw, Jack


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Murphy, Paul
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Nellist, Dave
Turner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


O'Hara. Edward
Walley, Joan


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wareing, Robert N.


Parry, Robert
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pike, Peter L.
Wigley, Dafydd


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prescott, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Tony


Randall. Stuart
Wray, Jimmy


Redmond, Martin



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Reid, Dr John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Richardson, Jo
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Robertson, George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Alan Williams be added to the Select Committee on European Legislation.—[Mr. Chapman.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Denzil Davies be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Chapman.]

PETITION

Greenwich Park

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I wish to present a petition, signed by more than 4,000 residents of and visitors to Greenwich who are very concerned about the proposed privatisation of the gardening and horticultural work of Greenwich park. I share their concern.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State not to proceed with the contracting out of the services supporting the Royal Park.

And your Petitioners, as in duty hound, will ever pray. etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Sheltered Housing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Sir Marcus Fox: This debate may be wider than the Minister anticipates. If so, I am sure that he will be primed with the right answers. The debate is about specific problems relating to the provision of sheltered housing in both the public and private sectors. I must declare an interest because I am a non-executive director of McCarthy and Stone, which is probably No. 1 in the private sector. To balance that, my wife has been on the board of the Bradford and Northern Housing Association for more years than I have been a non-executive director of that company, so my family can truly speak for both sides of the industry.
Because of the recession, which, I hope, we shall soon see the end of, the housing market is suffering. I am concerned not just about sheltered housing but about the whole problem of low-cost housing. Water companies are not the most popular companies in the country. I do not wish to quote the Prime Minister in this debate, but when certain salary increases were given to the chairmen of the privatised water authorities, he was somewhat critical, because they are not exactly on the bread line. The infrastructure charges, in particular, are causing enormous anguish to the construction industry, which is always the last to come out of a recession. Confidence needs to be restored and positive help is needed.
May I point to a direction in which such help could be given? I do not suggest that section 79 of the Water Act 1989 was wrong. Indeed, the great success of privatisation has been freeing the water industry from Treasury control, enabling it to operate in the market and raise the financial resources to invest in whatever is needed to enhance pollution control in line with EC regulations. Much of what was provided by the 1989 Act was welcomed, but, in one respect, we seem to have gone too far.
Section 79 of the Act provided for infrastructure charges to be paid for all new domestic connections to water and sewerage services which range from £370 per house in parts of the north-east to more than £2,000 per house in parts of the Wessex water district. That may not seem to be too penal, but I shall widen the debate because it is about sheltered housing. If we consider housing associations providing accommodation with 40 units, that makes a total of about £80,000 in addition to what they would normally have paid. The same applies in all sorts of other spheres. Someone with a small house in that district will face exactly the same charge.
The relevant clause was introduced in the House after the Bill had completed its Committee stage, and was finally agreed to by the House on 3 July 1989 as part of a package of 460 amendments from the other place guillotined in two short sittings of this House. It was a major amendment, but received no proper consideration or debate in this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), who is knowledgeable on housing, recently wrote in Building magazine that the episode represented a
shameful failure of Parliament to scrutinise the proposed arrangements properly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton and for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) went to see the Minister

for the Environment and Countryside to put the case. It was argued by the water industry that the charges were required due to the excessive load imposed on the system by new development, particularly new housebuilding. In summary, their argument was that existing consumers were cross-subsidising the purchase of new houses and sheltered schemes, and house builders were not making an adequate contribution to the costs that they imposed.
Having re-examined all those facts prior to and following the passage of the 1989 Act, I am satisfied that that is a substantial misrepresentation of the true position. Under the Water Act 1948, the Public Health Act 1936 and the Water Act 1973, the developers have made substantial capital contributions to many large and small housing and other development schemes, either through the requisitioning formula in those pieces of legislation or as a result of negotiated agreements with the former water authorities. Those contributions helped to offset the reduced Treasury funding of the water industry after 1974. It can be argued that new development, far from paying its way, contributed substantially, even prior to privatisation, to improvements in the system. Payments continue to be made under the terms of the earlier agreements. The Bill, when published in 1988, contained extended formulas for the requisitioning of water and sewerage services. Those provided for payments for additional items.
All that is unbelievable in terms of the negotiations that took place between the parties involved. Having followed the brief carefully, I find it unbelievable that, having determined that the agreements represented a fair balance between those involved—consumers, developers and their customers—a bombshell should fall on housebuilders on 11 May 1989, when they were called to meet the Minister and were told that there was to be a new clause introducing a tax on new houses.
The infrastructure charge does not relate to any specific supply of service to any particular development site. It is a payment for the benefit of the community as a whole, based on cost spread over a company's operational district. We in the industry have been making this complaint for some time. The Director General of Water Services has accurately summarised it in the following terms:
When a customer pays his infrastructure charge, he cannot identify what item he has contributed to, nor can he verify that the works generally described as being covered by his infrastructure charge do not overlap with one of the other charges he has paid, or something that a different customer has paid.
It is argued that this charge is intended to pay for works beyond those covered by the extended powers.
All this highlights the injustice to house builders. It is obvious that much of what was neglected before is now recognised in the charges that are levied. With all this in mind, the Director General of Water Services said in the 1990 annual report that he had reservations about whether the infrastructure charges are the most suitable way of recovering costs and extending water and sewerage systems. That was a significant comment by the official appointed by Ministers to monitor and review the operations of the Act and to regulate the newly privatised industry.
The end of last week saw the publication of the document "Paying for water: the way ahead" by Ofwat. It concludes under the heading "Capital charges":
In particular, infrastructure charges, introduced at privatisation, have aroused criticism"—


that is an understatement. 
I remain concerned that the level of infrastructure charges, and the variation in charges between companies, is hard to justify…I believe that in many cases the current level of infrastructure charges represent a cross-subsidy from new customers to customers generally.
The profits of the industry. at £1 billion, are about 12 per cent. higher than Government expectations and the director general is saying that something is wrong. He is absolutely right. The house building industry is suffering from the worst recession in 40 years while the profits of the water industry are excessive. There are great problems in all areas of the trade, not only in the private sector. It is nonsensical that the Housing Corporation should subsidise housing associations and take taxpayers' money to swell the profits of the water companies.
This request has been made before and resisted, but I ask Ministers to consider it once again. We need to restimulate the economy and the house building industry by reducing its costs. I urge the Minister to ask the director general to look again at these arrangements. He can do that now; he does not have to wait until 1994 for the quinquennial review. The director general intervened earlier this year on profits, price rises and dividends. The voluntary restraints were agreed by the water companies, which admit that they comprehensively outmanoeuvred the Government when negotiating the privatisation regime in 1989.
Everyone understands that these charges are not right. Something must be done about them. Something can be done, and I appeal to the Minister to note carefully what I have said.

Mr. Steve Norris: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and of the Minister to speak?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Norris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on securing this debate and I am grateful to him for the chance to speak briefly.
I declare my interest as chairman of Haven Services Ltd., a private sector manager of sheltered housing, probably second in the market behind the company with which my hon. Friend is associated.
The whole purpose of sheltered housing is to allow people who become more and more dependent in their later years to trade down the capital value of their properties and convert their capital assets into smaller properties and into an income stream to pay for the increasing care needs of later life.
On that basis, while special pleading is not appropriate, it is clearly right that we should seek a regime which allows such accommodation to be built economically, whether in the public or in the private sector. It is also clearly inappropriate that we should have a regime of charging here which disadvantages in many cases the potential owners of small, modest properties such as sheltered housing. There is only one way in which such very large connection fees are recovered. Our experience is straightforward: they are simply passed on to the eventual purchaser. There is no other route.
In the circumstances, I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will bear in mind the fact that water charges

generally will in the future—I understand this from the report that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley quoted—be based on the council tax banding which we discussed earlier this evening. It might be appropriate for connection charges, too, to be related to some degree, within an individual water authority's area, to the aggregate of the council hand value available to the water authority in a way that would thus reflect the actual value of the properties, whether in the public or in the private sector.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) raises a serious issue and the level of concern is evidenced by the fact that a number of my hon. Friends have stayed for this Adjournment debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who intervened, for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), who have been present throughout most of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley recounted, provision for these charges was introduced as a Government amendment to the Water Bill in another place. The proposal for the charges was first raised in Committee on the Bill, when it was put to the Government that the existing system of funding new infrastructure to serve new development was both confused and unfair to existing customers. That is a dilemma to which we shall return again and again—the difference between existing customers and new customers.
Before the introduction of the charges, new infrastructure capacity needed to serve new customers—such as treatment works and reservoirs—was largely met from charges to existing customers. In some instances, mostly in the case of major development proposals, new infrastructure capacity was funded through planning agreements, whereby developers would make a contribution towards the cost as a part of their proposal. This approach to the provision of new infrastructure capacity meant that existing customers subsidised new customers and planning applications hinged on complicated legal agreements, the negotiation of which unnecessarily complicated and delayed the planning process.
To overcome these obvious anomalies in the provision of new infrastructure capacity, it was proposed that a simple scheme of charges for each new connection to domestic mains water and sewerage be introduced. The advantages of such a system lie in the simplicity of its operation: developers would know in advance the cost of their proposals; it would take away the element of uncertainty in planning consideration; and it would place the burden of the provision of new infrastructure on those who would be served by it rather than on customers generally who would gain no direct benefit from its provision.
We saw the merit of these arguments and agreed to provide for infrastructure charges as a Government amendment to the Water Bill. In May 1989 we announced our intention and consulted the house building industry on the details of the operation of the system, which was included in the conditions of appointment of each of the water and sewerage companies.
I think that my hon. Friend, while he has a number of good points, is less than fair when he says that when in due course the Water Bill became an Act this was a sudden bombshell landed on development companies. They were consulted fully and throughout.
As part of the process, limits were set for each of the companies on the charge which would be payable for each connection. Those limits were based on the detailed analysis of companies' forward investment programmes which were being undertaken as part of the K setting process. That applied limits on companies' general charges increases through the formula represented as RPI + K.
Again, I resist any suggestion that in making those connection charges there has been any element of profiteering by the water companies. Either they charge for new connections or they charge existing customers. That is the dilemma that we have to meet.
The process of K setting, involving detailed scrutiny of companies' investment programmes by independent engineering consultants, enabled us to ensure that infrastructure charges specifically excluded the cost of the general upkeep, improvement and repair of the existing system. Those costs continue to he met by charges to customers generally.
There has been some comment on the costs being incurred because water companies are insisting on each dwelling within a development of flats being supplied separately, so attracting a charge for each dwelling. It was the intention that a charge be made for each dwelling and that was made clear when the amendment was presented. In calculating the initial charge each individual connection was included regardless of the demand each would impose on the overall services.
Following representations from many people, the Director General of Water Services undertook a review and agreed a licence amendment with the industry, linking the level of payment to the demand by reference to the facilities provided by the development. That is not cast in tablets of stone. There has been movement by the director general. The level of infrastructure charge to a development of flats under that arrangement is unlikely to differ very much whether it is based on a charge for each flat or on the overall demand scale introduced by the amendment.
Under the terms of the Water Industry Act companies can insist upon a separate service pipe for each connection. That provision exists for good reason—to protect supplies to customers. It has been represented to us that, in some instances, that action could impose a considerable cost burden in supplying water and sewerage to new developments and in those circumstances there is potential for dispute between the companies and the parties. The director general has said that he would like a power to consider and rule on such disputes. That we are considering in the context of the new disputes power contained in the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill which, I am glad to say, completed its Committee stage today.
I appreciate that the introduction of the new charges came at a difficult time for the house building industry. We recognised that at the time and delayed the introduction of the charges until April 1990, nearly a year later. Additionally, specific provision was made for circum

stances in which existing development proposals were already the subject of planning agreements to contribute towards infrastructure costs, to ensure that those were taken into account. However, we recognise that there will inevitably be circumstances where development proposals were already under way and where the introduction of the charges will have led to increased costs. We recognise also that, in the present market, developers may face difficulty in absorbing or passing on such costs. Ultimately we would expect the cost to be reflected in the price that developers pay for land, just as with other development costs.
As my hon. Friends will be aware, we were asked by the house building industry to consider transitional relief for developers, in particular a moratorium on the charges in respect of development land held as "stock in trade" land. That request was given careful consideration, but we concluded that for practical reasons a moratorium could not he justified. We recognise that the infrastructure charges system may not be perfect—I believe that all right hon. and hon. Members agree with that—and that it may require adjustment to achieve the right balance between charges to new and to existing customers. Whatever happens, someone will have to pay—and if that is not done by new customers, it will be done by existing ones. However, we believe that the system's inherent advantages far outweigh its disadvantages.
In the long term, a wider system of "impact charges" could, if properly calculated, complement the planning system by encouraging development towards areas where there is unused infrastructure capacity rather than just provide for the funding of infrastructure for new development—but perhaps that matter is for consideration on a future occasion.
For the present, the conditions of appointment that govern the application and levels of infrastructure charges are the responsibility of the director general. As part of his recent review of future charging methods, the director general has also been considering whether a thoroughgoing review of infrastructure charges might be appropriate—and whether there is scope for changing the basis of the charges, in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley would like. The director general concluded that, at present, such a change would not be possible in advance of a periodic review of the industry's overall charging framework, which he proposes to carry out in 1994.
The provisions of companies' conditions of appointment prescribe the circumstances in which the director general may review their charges. He is already proposing a review at the earliest opportunity. It is not possible for the levels of infrastructure charge and their relationship to charges to customers generally to be considered independently of that review.
The present levels and operation of the infrastructure charges system have been calculated by reference to the cost of the provision of new infrastructure, to serve new development over the period to the year 2000. It would not be possible for the companies to meet the cost of that requirement in addition to their existing commitments.
While I understand the desire to institute a review at the earliest opportunity—I will certainly draw the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Epping Forest to the attention of the Director General for Water Services—the infrastructure charges are inextricably linked to the level of charges to customers generally.
All water and sewerage companies are undertaking programmes of work to improve river and bathing water quality, repair and renew aging mains and sewers, and meet new standards for drinking water quality. We would not be thanked for returning to the system whereby existing customers were asked to subsidise new customers as well, and therefore we must be extremely careful not to rush any changes to the present charges system without careful consideration of the impact that they may have on other customers.
I assure my hon. Friends that the director general will continue to monitor the way in which companies apply charges in practice. Recently, he wrote to the companies about the need for common sense and flexibility in the application of charges. He cited in particular cases where sites that previously included connections are being redeveloped.
Companies are required to give a credit in respect of any previous connections. Where the redevelopment may attract a multiple of the standard charge to reflect demand, the director general suggests that there is nothing to prevent them from similarly taking account of the demand that probably existed before.
Companies have flexibility in implementing charges and are not required by the conditions of their appointment to tie themselves without question to the terms of the infrastructure charges system laid down therein.
My hon. Friends have raised an important matter, but one that ultimately comes down to this question: how do we strike the right balance between existing customers and new customers? The Government listened to a number of representations during the Committee stage of what is now the Water Act 1989 and sought to act on what seemed at that time to be a general consensus. They consulted broadly those concerned and presented measures that commanded the House's support. The implementation of those measures is now a matter for the Director General of Water Services.
The director general is, I think, aware of the concerns that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and others. I shall ensure that he is fully aware of the anxieties that have been reinforced and echoed this evening; but it is not easy to strike a balance between existing and new customers, particularly against the current background in the housing and development markets.
I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that we and the director general seek at all times to find the fairest possible balance in ensuring that new infrastructure capacity comes on stream and is costed fairly between existing customers and the new customers who will benefit from it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.